Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pale Moon Project Rolls Out The Basilisk Browser Project

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    The Palemoon forum is just full of hatred towards the Firefox project. People there just spew hatred and snide remarks. They belittle the very Gecko engine they have forked from

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post
      Anyway, back to this announcement, what exactly is this? "UXP" sounds a bit like the old XULRunner initiative... but how is Basilisk any different from PaleMoon? It almost sounds like it is just the equivalent of FF's beta or nightly channel....
      The way Moonchild usually describes it, Mozilla used to develop a software platform which was capable of running different applications, and Firefox was the main application. The current version of Pale Moon is based on the same "platform" code base as Firefox, but with the Gecko engine replaced by Pale Moon's own Goanna engine. In the future, the PM developers are hoping to completely break away from Mozilla's code base.

      Basilisk, as I understand it, is a test of whether they can make an application run on their new platform base. It will use development versions of some of the infurstructure they've developed for PM, but won't use Goanna. If it works, then they will port the Pale Moon an Goanna to their new UXP platform, and then that will be the new Pale Moon.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
        Yeah, fuck performance! Who would want performance!?!
        There is a vocal minority of people who are on Firefox because of its addons, not raw performance.

        I would be very pissed off if NoScript wasn't ported over, for example. (currently is still work-in-progress).

        There are also loons and tinfoil hatters too, that see things that are only in their mind too.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post

          Yeah, fuck performance! Who would want performance!?!
          We shouldn't need that performance, but there's the threat of google pushing out more "web" bloat every time they please..

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by KellyClowers View Post

            XUL and XPCOM could be made multithread/multiprocess, just as the core can be. Might take breaking API changes, but it had those anyway. It would be a lot of work, but it is still the most correct answer (the other somewhat less correct answer would be get rid of XUL, but not until you have a full replacement ready, not just WE)
            They could but it was be such an architectural shift that what you would end with is something that isn't XUL at all. There are some rather deep systematic things about the process that would need to brake to get it up and running. Even with that it would likely look like a very crude hack attempt to be backwards compatible for the sake of legacy. A legacy that would be broken beyond all recognition.

            At that point, you might as well start with a clean slate anyway if only to have the engine make sense again.

            Also, people who think FF/gecko are slow are insane.
            That was a lot of people, FF57 will likely change quite a few minds on that ticket.

            Comment


            • #26
              They changed the GUI too much, namely the settings and new tab page.
              Why allow either 5 sites or 10 sites on new tab? Why can't I choose 4 or 20 or 28? the former behaviour wasn't perfect (delete a square by accident, can't get it back) but could show more if you needed it.
              "restore session" GUI hasn't changed, still braindead (show a very long list, five lines at a time)

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by grok View Post

                We shouldn't need that performance, but there's the threat of google pushing out more "web" bloat every time they please..
                Yeah, let's push back by promoting crappy performance!

                Comment


                • #28
                  It's not what I was saying. Well behaved sites need very little CPU power that's all.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X