Web lists-archives.com

Re: Safe To Stay With 56.0.2 ?

WaltS48 wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote:
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> The third option is to consider FF forks that stay with the old extension system,
>>> like e.g. Pale Moon.
>> I recommend against that. You might want to read
>> https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use-waterfox-pale-moon-or-basilisk/
> Interesting article and the same rationale applies to SeaMonkey IMHO.
>> Even if you don’t completely trust some of Mozilla’s business decisions, your browser
>> is just too important to be left to a small community of enthusiasts. We think it’s
>> best to go with a big project with a large number of developers that receives a lot
>> of attention to security.
> But then as we have seen in this group, users are more concerned about extensions

They are more concerned about usability and stability - call it conservatism if you
like - rather than dev's toys. Which is exactly why lots of people are abandoning FF.

Quoting from the given article about Pale Moon:
- "The project uses an older Firefox interface created before the Australis theme,
  and still supports XUL add-ons"
It does, fortunately.

- "nor does it support watching certain kinds of video with DRM"
It doesn't, but that a minor, if not microscopic, drawback. For the very rare
occasions where I need it I keep FF ESR as fallback.

- "Pale Moon tends to perform worse on browser benchmarks compared to modern browsers
I've commented on that before: firing up FF (ESR) can take five (!) times as
long as firing up PM.
And what use are browser benchmarks really? Does anyone really care if a page shows
up after 1.0 or 1.3 seconds? Such benchmarks are heavily overrated.

- "The older code also omits features that help make modern browsers so secure, like
  the multi-process sandboxing features that have finally arrived in Firefox Quantum."
For how many users is that *really* important in everyday life?


general mailing list