Jump to content

Palemoon drama has gotten bad


Wunderbar98
 Share

Recommended Posts


On 12/17/2021 at 6:01 PM, Sampei.Nihira said:

I was expecting them to kick tobin out of project and stop being hostile. Well I got fear palememe might die as there has been fight between tobin and moonchild. Codebase is solid but I cant recommend it anymore for their hostility towards everyone. Only some of it forks are good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think MAT was kicked out.  He's been "put in his place" but that's all I've seen thus far.  I don't follow it unless folks here post on it.

What I've been very eager to see is Mypal 2.0, or whatever it's going to be called, THAT will be a day of celebration in my book.

Because, um, Roytam browsers simply can NOT handle the modern web, period.  Unfortunate, but TRUE.  I've given up on all of Roytam releases.

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I don't think MAT was kicked out.  He's been "put in his place" but that's all I've seen thus far.  I don't follow it unless folks here post on it.

What I've been very eager to see is Mypal 2.0, or whatever it's going to be called, THAT will be a day of celebration in my book.

Because, um, Roytam browsers simply can NOT handle the modern web, period.  Unfortunate, but TRUE.  I've given up on all of Roytam releases.

I also look to see the new Mypal or whatever, but I do hope you won't give up on your 360 Chrome .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be keeping my 360Chrome around even once Mypal 2.0 shows up.  They (and Humming Owl's, from what I see) have basically matured to the point of nothing else to really do for them, use them as-is from here on out.  I would like to see progress made on the "compile" front, but I cannot take the lead on that.  Too steep of a learning curve.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I don't think MAT was kicked out.  He's been "put in his place" but that's all I've seen thus far.  I don't follow it unless folks here post on it.

What I've been very eager to see is Mypal 2.0, or whatever it's going to be called, THAT will be a day of celebration in my book.

Because, um, Roytam browsers simply can NOT handle the modern web, period.  Unfortunate, but TRUE.  I've given up on all of Roytam releases.

I would say problem is modern web and not Palemoon. W3C been bought out by big G and other big corpos. They dropped all actually useful things like marquee, tables and then gave it CSS replacements that wont work at all. And everytime they release those end user would need to upgrade browser to view site using it. Code keep getting more and more complex to do same task. Consider how easy tables were. Compare it to CSS replacement of it. That is why I keep referring web standards as broken. Last proper standard was XHTML but it was dropped when W3C was bought out.

Palememe based browsers in other hand lack many antifeatures of modern browser like webrtc, WASM is easy toggle off as it is security risk, EME DRM. Also it got smaller codebase.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

useful things like marquee

Marquee was one of the most CHILDISH elements ever to exist!

 

edit  --  and thankfully, although able to "marquee" when creating this post, the forum software does REMOVE the marquee element.

Edited by NotHereToPlayGames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/22/2021 at 6:28 AM, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

...They dropped all actually useful things like marquee, tables and then gave it CSS replacements that wont work at all...Consider how easy tables were. Compare it to CSS replacement of it...

Since when tables have been dropped from HTML specs? I use tables on my website for what they have been made for...tables.

Tables have been misused - I would say abused - (even by myself as I didn't know better back then) to create menus, paragraphs and so on. Basic CSS is also very easy, but mightier - and it's the correct technique.

CSS1 was published in 1996, CSS2 in 1998 - so you're referring to HTML standards from pre-1996!?

CSS1, 2 or 2.1 isn't the problem...even CSS 2.2 shouldn't be a problem - all the bloated JS and especially all the JS frameworks are a problem!

kind regards
soggi

Edited by soggi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, soggi said:

Since when tables have been dropped from HTML specs? I use tables on my website for what they have been made for...tables.

Maybe I was bit unclear. Current spec claim that tables is only for "tabular data" and should not be used for anything else even before new broken standards came it was used for layouts too and did way better job than CSS to it with way less code.

5 hours ago, soggi said:

CSS1 was published in 1996, CSS2 in 1998 - so you're referring to HTML standards from pre-1996!?

CSS1, 2 or 2.1 isn't the problem...even CSS 2.2 shouldn't be a problem - all the bloated JS and especially all the JS frameworks are a problem!

...

that was my initial though when I read that. I did not refer to pre 1996 layouts and I did not say CSS is bad. What I said was that they are making too much stuff with CSS these days because "we need to follow web standard". Maybe disable CSS for multiple web sites to see which of them work without it and not turn to Cuisinart.

Here is good example. This is just one of many CSS lines in cnet https://www.cnet.com/a/fly/css/core/main.desktop-523b5d0a22-rev.css that and more is needed to render site proper

In other hand here is minimal CSS from toastytech http://toastytech.com/guis/guimain.css

Or for third lets take your site minimal CSS http://soggi.org/soggi.css even with CSS disabled only thing I lose is colours which was expected to happen.

last two on list are very minimal and only uses CSS for what it is intended for. I did testing on your site with Netscape 3 which does not support HTML4 and it renders almost perfectly, only thing being CSS which was not fully implemented on it (but there is not reason run NSS3 on Pentium or faster with Windows 95 or newer since retrozilla) so I am not pointing finger to you or any other developer who does sites that way.

P.S nice to see your legendary site still alive like back in day and that you did not force HTTPS for clients. Your sites belongs to my recommendations on good sites for that (compatible with old browsers,does not force js, no HTTPS forcing, easy to navigate and most important got enjoyable content)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx for making that clear!

For over a decade, since I was digging deeper into basic HTML layout, my point of view is also "tables are just for tabular data". Table layouts worked, yes - but it has always been a misuse in my today's opinion. I'm not with you when you say table layouts did a better job than CSS and with less code - in my opinion the contrary is the case, table layouts are just bad practice (OK, frame sets - or even Flash - are worse although not being misuse/bad practice - Did you ever try the Wayback Machine on such pages?) and need more code, especially redundant code. You can also layout simple HTML pages w/o CSS and w/o the misuse of tables and they can have a great look despite that.

BTW back then I decided to create the pages in HTML 4.01 Strict standard - so all the deprecated stuff got left out with still being very classic and compatible. (except some pages where I'm testing some HTML5 stuff like SM buttons)

Your CNET CSS example shows the problem with auto-generated code, it's bloated without end. The toastytech and my CSS are simple, hand-coded and only contain the necessary things. With HTML it's the same, when you hand-code it you avoid all this fancy eye candy stuff which doesn't add any value to your content. Additionally I always had an eye on compatibility, usability, resource efficiency, security and last but not least data economy - my website is designed to run on as many browsers / OSes with the best (self-explaining) usability, lowest consumption of resources, highest security and best data economy as possible. The use of JS would contradict all of this (except usability), so the only JS is the Matomo tracker (with a PHP fallback, if JS is not supported or blocked).

Concerning HTTPS this is a compromise as I don't want to exclude users with OSes and/or browsers w/o TLS 1.2+ support from my pages by activating a redirect or HSTS, despite the users in question per year can be counted by the fingers of two hands. But I'm offering content for older HW/SW and I know there are users visiting my website with such devices and with the trust in the service I'm offering. If I have the time, I will add a .htaccess rule to redirect newer browsers with TLS 1.2 support at least as I really recommend using HTTPS if possible.

BTW I always have a thought about the wasting of energy - all this bloated JS (client-sided) and PHP (server-sided). The most Wordpress (Joomla, Drupal, ... whatever CMS) based pages have static content which could be simply done with HTML/CSS (and maybe a little of PHP and JS) with an extremely lower waste of energy and therefor a fraction of the cost (if someone only cares about the money).

I love real standards and I love to be efficient and compatible...the only problem with my website is that it's not mobile compatible as there's no mobile/responsive design...but I can live with that.
I also love to see that users like my pages and honestly appreciate the work behind the scenes (despite my not perfect English ;)), it naturally is music to my ears. My website especially was made for users like you @Mr.Scienceman2000, let me quote the best description I've ever read about my website...not to put myself into spotlight but to show the intention of the design/layout, a comment by morganvachon on Hacker News:

Quote

A bit off topic but that article -- as well as the rest of the site -- is absolutely gorgeous. The smart use of context-specific text colors such as green for section headers, red for emphasis, white-on-blue for code blocks, and (my favorite example) orange for external links vs yellow for internal links; the highly readable but nevertheless classic console font; the razor sharp lines/boxes; and the jet-black background come together to make it feel like I'm reading a BBS in high school in 1992. One of the reasons I really like i3wm is this particular aesthetic, combining modern content with authentic retro design.

Just my condensed two cents to this (off)topic...

kind regards
soggi

Edited by soggi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tables being used for tabular data was always the best practice and something that was in every learning HTML or web design book you'd ever find. Well back when books were the go-to way to learn these things. Obviously we should be aware that the modern web developer is not using the best practices of making a website. It is hard to find an actual good website these days, and why should people feel obligated to make them? The browsers still allow bad code and even the online validators are not good either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys i'm deeply sorry to talk about this here, but it seems that their recently launched third party AVX2 build is not far from equal to performance in machines which support this extension to newer browsers. I'm using it daily now and it's such faster it made me drop firefox photon forks. I think it raises the necessity of a build which is based on their latest engine (there are things which simply don't work in current forks, at least when we talk about windows forks) and compatible with all windows that support avx and avx2, and linux. It REALLY makes a massive difference in daily usage. It is still the most private browser as of now along with its forks, and arguably one of the most secure.

I don't want to give support to any side, but i think its important to emphasize the significance of this to those who run fast machines with windows 7 and vista (the scope of this forum and considering if our dear vista friends in faster machines manage to have avx, avx2, avx-512 and amx on vista in the future). The GCC compiler and advanced vector extensions optimizations REALLY improve javascript performance dramatically.

Edited by Eddie Phizika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2021 at 8:24 PM, Mr.Scienceman2000 said:

Codebase is solid

It's not. Firefox 52 based browsers suffer with memory leak hell.

Also, regarding FailMoon, I don't understand the love for it as a product when SeaMonkey has existed for much longer and has much better natured developers that may actually be able to get things done in a much more civil manner with much less infighting and drama, much better PR and overall a much more polished and stable product that while might not be so good for 'XP-era' systems due to the 2.53 line being incompatible, they're literally backporting things from the latest Firefox ESR onto FF56/60's engine... not to mention that the SeaMonkey devs were forcefully kicked out of their funding from Mozilla and forced to look elsewhere, something that has been ongoing since the past four or five years now or so, while FailMoon has not had to deal with being screwed over themselves other than supposedly by their own narcissistic reasons to make up drama much of the time.

Oh, also, I always knew the PM drama would happen with RT1/Feodor2 eventually and that it was only a matter of time. They've been pulling stupid things for a while like publicly denying support for people due to what Linux distro they use (Slackware in that case), the whole fiasco with the OpenBSD install script, the NoScript block in the browser, refusing to implement things while claiming to follow the standard "because they don't agree with it on a political level"*, among other things. There was something else too but I forgot what.

* Guess what, web standards exist and they are to be followed generally speaking, not so much when it comes to 'design trends' or anything as that's an artistic thing anyway - ignoring those is fine, but anything that's an actual specification or whatever should not be followed liberally, so to say. Like, I dunno, take a packet of crisps for instance. Not every brand follows the same colours on the packets (glares at Walkers) but they always have the same formatting for the nutritional information and stuff; one is a design trend, and one is a standard. :)

(Fun fact, the developer of the Mega Drive demo 'CrazyBus' - yup, that one with the loud, randomly generated PSG tones for the title screen - actually uses SeaMonkey exclusively).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Compa said:

It's not. Firefox 52 based browsers suffer with memory leak hell.

Also, regarding FailMoon, I don't understand the love for it as a product when SeaMonkey has existed for much longer and has much better natured developers that may actually be able to get things done in a much more civil manner with much less infighting and drama, much better PR and overall a much more polished and stable product that while might not be so good for 'XP-era' systems due to the 2.53 line being incompatible, they're literally backporting things from the latest Firefox ESR onto FF56/60's engine... not to mention that the SeaMonkey devs were forcefully kicked out of their funding from Mozilla and forced to look elsewhere, something that has been ongoing since the past four or five years now or so, while FailMoon has not had to deal with being screwed over themselves other than supposedly by their own narcissistic reasons to make up drama much of the time.

Oh, also, I always knew the PM drama would happen with RT1/Feodor2 eventually and that it was only a matter of time. They've been pulling stupid things for a while like publicly denying support for people due to what Linux distro they use (Slackware in that case), the whole fiasco with the OpenBSD install script, the NoScript block in the browser, refusing to implement things while claiming to follow the standard "because they don't agree with it on a political level"*, among other things. There was something else too but I forgot what.

* Guess what, web standards exist and they are to be followed generally speaking, not so much when it comes to 'design trends' or anything as that's an artistic thing anyway - ignoring those is fine, but anything that's an actual specification or whatever should not be followed liberally, so to say. Like, I dunno, take a packet of crisps for instance. Not every brand follows the same colours on the packets (glares at Walkers) but they always have the same formatting for the nutritional information and stuff; one is a design trend, and one is a standard. :)

(Fun fact, the developer of the Mega Drive demo 'CrazyBus' - yup, that one with the loud, randomly generated PSG tones for the title screen - actually uses SeaMonkey exclusively).

 

I like seamonkey more than any firefox old or new fork simply because mozilla suite was better than FF, but youtube music does not work out of the box (it's not remarkably hard to do) and i strongly doubt they will keep compatibility with Win7 in the future.

Edited by Eddie Phizika
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2022 at 3:40 PM, Tripredacus said:

... and why should people feel obligated to make them? The browsers still allow bad code and even the online validators are not good either.

Having good code, which is just basic, leads to great compatibility with all browsers (and other software like crawlers or bots, if needed) and better search engine results. With diggin' deeper into all of this stuff I also had an eye on basic SEO (search engine optimization) and valid, short and snappy code is a mainstay of my success with it.

Browsers may allow bad code and may display everything correctly, but you never know how a browser handles non-valid code - and it's even more vague for other applications. When it comes to HTML and CSS validators, I just can say that you can perfectly validate your code up to HTML 4.01 with the W3C Markup Validation Service for SGML applications (HTML, XHTML, ...) and CSS with the W3C CSS Validation Service.

 

kind regards
soggi

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...