Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 3)


Recommended Posts


Honestly I feel like Feodor2 and roytam1 should have tried to build from FF right from the start considering just how much of a history PaleMoon have had towards forks.

While I will admit I have an unpopular take in that both Feodor2 and roytam1's actions indeed violated the MPL 2.0 in ways, the unprofessional handling from upstream, overall childish attitude on both ends of the argument (surprisingly not so much from the fork developers but from its users), and the fact that Mypal/RT1 line probably benefitted Pale Moon/UXP by giving the upstream project more public attention than they ever could have, kind of shows that ultra-copyleft software licensing in general is quite honestly a pile of elitist/whiny control freakish behaviour that is done in such a way that it can be left ambiguous from a legal standpoint. (Which is why MIT and BSD are so popular: imposing tons of legal jargon is in itself the very antithesis of freedom, and is essentially an attempt to control the inevitable/spite people who profit from your work while simultaneously complaining about lack of proper coordination and funding for your GPL/MPL project.)

I remember being an ardent PaleMoon user (using it around 2015 onwards when I discovered the Atom version) until the OpenBSD installer fiasco and that was long before Mypal & the RT1 line even existed, so I kinda saw this coming all along tbh.

Just make sure the repo is cleanly organised... and this time please get a better logo, the raccoon one is kinda just eh. Raccoons are cute and all but slapping that as an icon just doesn't work all that well...

@kartel To my understanding it is built much less often these days.

Edited by Compa
lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New NewMoon 27 Build!

32bit https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20220219-f5d811828-xpmod.7z
32bit SSE https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20220219-f5d811828-xpmod-sse.7z
32bit noSSE https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-27.10.0.win32-git-20220219-f5d811828-xpmod-ia32.7z

64bit https://o.rthost.win/palemoon/palemoon-27.10.0.win64-git-20220219-f5d811828-xpmod.7z

source repo: https://github.com/roytam1/palemoon27

repo changes since my last build:
- import changes from `dev' branch of rmottola/Arctic-Fox:
 - Bug 1132920: Use movddup for SIMD swizzle pattern (0, 1, 0, 1) on SSE3 enabled machines; r=sunfish (2f6ff1e5ae)
 - cleanup (a843df02f4)
 - Bug 1201810, IonMonkey - Part 1: Move the platform specific shared ic stubs, r=jandem (41103c7241)
 - Bug 1201810, IonMonkey - Part 0: Improve code of EmitIonTailCallVM, r=jandem (aa72188407)
 - Bug 1203297: Fix makeFrameDescriptor warnings on x86 and x64, in non-unified builds; r=terrence (8ff0ef518d)
 - Bug 984018 - sincos optimization. r=nbp (8e82c1249e)
 - rearrange (9eec87ba05) (f5d811828)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New regular/weekly KM-Goanna release:
https://o.rthost.win/kmeleon/KM76.4.5-Goanna-20220219.7z

Changelog:

Out-of-tree changes:
* update Goanna3 to git 850741b59...f5d811828:
- import changes from `dev' branch of rmottola/Arctic-Fox:
 - Bug 1132920: Use movddup for SIMD swizzle pattern (0, 1, 0, 1) on SSE3 enabled machines; r=sunfish (2f6ff1e5ae)
 - cleanup (a843df02f4)
 - Bug 1201810, IonMonkey - Part 1: Move the platform specific shared ic stubs, r=jandem (41103c7241)
 - Bug 1201810, IonMonkey - Part 0: Improve code of EmitIonTailCallVM, r=jandem (aa72188407)
 - Bug 1203297: Fix makeFrameDescriptor warnings on x86 and x64, in non-unified builds; r=terrence (8ff0ef518d)
 - Bug 984018 - sincos optimization. r=nbp (8e82c1249e)
 - rearrange (9eec87ba05) (f5d811828)

* Notice: the changelog above may not always applicable to XULRunner code which K-Meleon uses.

A goanna3 source tree that has kmeleon adaption patch applied is available here: https://github.com/roytam1/palemoon27/tree/kmeleon76

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Compa said:

While I will admit I have an unpopular take in that both Feodor2 and roytam1's actions indeed violated the MPL 2.0 in ways

I hold that same unpopular take regarding Roytam1, but never really felt that towards Feodor2.  Neither here nor there, "it is what it is".

 

1 hour ago, Compa said:

and this time please get a better logo

Agreed!  I was never able to even Resource Hacker that old raccoon and intentionally stayed on an early version of Mypal just to avoide the raccoon.

 

I do definitely look forward to Mypal "2.0".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feodor2 seems to have created an overall more polished product anyway (I remember Discord working insanely well on Mypal for quite some time on an early 28.x version) and actually tried to differentiate from the normal Pale Moon at the time, though there was apparently some sort of source code misunderstanding over there too - mostly pertaining to poor English understanding on Feodor2's part and a lack of organisation I believe.

I'd like to see the versioning follow its own accord and not Mozilla's, at least. Be nice to have a browser that isn't following the absurd trend of ridiculous browser numbers. :P

Edited by Compa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Compa said:

Be nice to have a browser that isn't following the absurd trend of ridiculous browser numbers.

lol - yeah, they're already worried about 3-digit version numbers in the User Agent string.  And at this rate, four-digit version numbers is quite literally (not figuratively, but LITERALLY) "just around the corner".

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2022 at 5:25 PM, kartel said:

Is Version 28 dead?

Last update was Jan 22

UXP browsers like NM 28 are updated monthly now. Be patient. Besides, did you really feel the need to update your browser every week?

Unless there's a critical security fix, even monthly seems like overkill to me. The Web doesn't change that fast!

18 hours ago, Compa said:

Be nice to have a browser that isn't following the absurd trend of ridiculous browser numbers.

+1. It's just another instance of Mozilla chasing Google. Chrome is way up into the 90's, so Mozilla thinks FF has to be too. Are users really so dumb that they'd think Chrome 95 is "better" than FF 91 just because it has a higher version number? Well, I'm sure a few are, and they're both chasing the lowest common denominator.... :realmad:

I've mentioned this before, but it reminds me of when the DECT cordless phone standard came to the US. They named the US version DECT 6.0, even there was no version 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0 - because the previous generation of cordless phones worked on a 5.8 MHz frequency, and they thought folks would think "5.8" phones were "better" unless the new DECT phones carried a higher number :rolleyes:

Personally, I'd just use the year as a version number; you know, like Windows 95, 98, 2000 ... what was wrong with that? You could use the month as a subversion if desired....

20 hours ago, roytam1 said:

 - Bug 1201810, IonMonkey - Part 1: Move the platform specific shared ic stubs, r=jandem (41103c7241)
 - Bug 1201810, IonMonkey - Part 0: Improve code of EmitIonTailCallVM, r=jandem (aa72188407)

Not sure what's going on here, but it's interesting to see updates to NM 27's Javascript engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mathwiz said:

UXP browsers like NM 28 are updated monthly now. Be patient. Besides, did you really feel the need to update your browser every week?

Unless there's a critical security fix, even monthly seems like overkill to me. The Web doesn't change that fast!

Agreed!  I've always "hated" the weekly updates.

Seems to me that some folks just feel "naked" unless their anti-virus definitions update every twenty minutes instead of every twenty days and so they carry that same logic over to their web browser.

The only justification I see for "weekly" is that it makes Roytam's job a teany-tiny-tad easier - update 50 line items every week as opposed to 200 line items once a month.

But all-in-all, 90+ percent of the 50 weekly line items have ZERO effect on daily web browsing - you'd have to find the 100 web sites among the 1.7 billion known to exist where that particular line item has "any" effect whatsoever.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where folks see 50 line items and assume that each and every line item has a direct effect on "millions" of web sites.

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2022 at 4:19 AM, Sampei.Nihira said:

How does he do it?

Quote

i have finished studying mozilla rust language and found that it is no problem to use rust to build for winxp.

Has he found - or created - a Rust compiler that targets XP?

Could he let us (or at least @roytam1) in on the secret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

And at this rate, four-digit version numbers is quite literally (not figuratively, but LITERALLY) "just around the corner".

AIUI Mozilla is currently burning up version numbers at the ridiculous rate of 13 per year - more than 1 per month! But it'll still take them nearly 70 years to get to FF 1000.

Of course, if they went to weekly updates, they'd get there in under 20. Even I might live to see that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol

I did the math also.  Kinda surprised somebody else did too.

Though I submit that this is not "linear" (I include ESR, Android, and Desktop releases - why?  Because I don't think that Android and Desktop "have" to follow the same version numbers, they are two distinctly different products).

But that does convolute "number of releases" with "four-digit version number".

Wikipedia indicates that Firefox had 11 releases in only 6 months (so I shall average this as 22 for the year) of 2011,  31 releases in 2012,  31 releases in 2013,  32 releases in 2014,  45 releases in 2015   ---   see where I'm going?

I counted 63 for 2020  --  I acknowledge that counting ESRs, Android, and Desktop releases separately does "inflate" these numbers.

46 for 2021.

22 + 31 + 31 + 32 + 45 + 63 + 46 = 270

270 / 7 = 39 average per year

So that at least brings your 70yr estimate down to 26 years  :buehehe:

 

So I'll make a bold prediction  --  right now we are drawing in very close to three-digit version numbers and if we keep doing decimated versions like 90.0 to 90.0.1 to 90.0.2, that's SIX character spacings.

So my bold prediction is that somewhere within that 26 years that we lose the decimal point completely  --  we go from 110 to 111 (three character spacings), be don't do any 110.5.0 or 110.5.1 (seven character spacings).

And we'll be at those four digits before you know it.

 

Waka waka waka...

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

AIUI Mozilla is currently burning up version numbers at the ridiculous rate of 13 per year - more than 1 per month!

It's what everyone does these days . Look at MKVToolNix , for example or Opera/Chrome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...