| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| saellaven wrote: | I switched over to palemoon (from the palemoon overlay). Most of the Firefox addons work (those that don't are broken because of the interface changes in the newer versions of firefox and there are palemoon specific versions of a couple of the ones that are broken)
..
Palemoon forked Firefox at 24 and has kept up with some of the changes since then... but one of the primary purposes of the fork was to keep the interface stable. They can pull something good in from Firefox pretty much any time they want, so it doesn't need a ton of developers, though the developers have done things to improve security that Firefox hadn't done themselves yet.
Ghostery seems to work just fine for me despite it saying it doesn't work (that said, I've recently switched to disconnect). Adblock Plus isn't compatible because of issues with the interface, so they forked that into Adblock Latitude (see: https://addons.palemoon.org/ and https://addons.palemoon.org/resources/incompatible/ ).
As for converting profiles, I only use one myself, but there shouldn't be much profile work to convert, so I imagine you should just be able to copy them over to .moonchild\ productions/pale\ moon/ just like you were copying a Firefox profile to a new directory/system.
I've been using it as my browser for months now and the only issues I've run into, are weak security being disabled by default in palemoon, while needing to re-enable it for a couple sites that are still using a weak SSL key. |
This sounds brilliant; thanks! :-)
Much prefer having to opt-in to weak security.
User info and technical details look good.
I rather like the binary-redistribution terms as well.
Good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony0945
Advocate
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, much better than Mozilla's, but I see I have to retract my offer to supply the k10 binary package unless I obtain permission, in which case it appears he would host it on his site.
At least it doesn't have Mozilla's nonsense terms that I can't copy the branded binary from one of my computers to another over my lan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony0945 wrote: | | Yes, much better than Mozilla's, but I see I have to retract my offer to supply the k10 binary package unless I obtain permission, in which case it appears he would host it on his site. |
That's not how I read it; you'd only need to be a "contributed build" if points 1-6 do not apply, and you do not qualify for exemption under 7 or 8.
Is it point 3 wrt changes that bothers you?
That seems to be the major one, from my reading, in the context of FLOSS. Point 2 on format seems ok, since portage only produces and uses tbz2 binpkgs (tf.)
You can always distribute under unofficial "New Moon" branding, if you are making changes, but I'd get in touch with the guy to see what he says; it may well be that changes you're making are things he needs to consider as patches.
Gentoo users are excellent news for an upstream.
| Quote: | | At least it doesn't have Mozilla's nonsense terms that I can't copy the branded binary from one of my computers to another over my lan. |
Yeah that is a mess-up; it would be much more honest of Mozilla to use AGPL3+, since that's what it's about (preserving freedom over the network.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
