Quoting from the web site:
"Pale Moon is an Open Source web browser available for Microsoft Windows and Linux (with other operating systems in development), focusing on efficiency and ease of use. Make sure to get the most out of your browser!
Pale Moon offers you a browsing experience in a browser completely built from its own, independently developed source that has been forked off from Firefox/Mozilla code, with carefully selected features and optimizations to maximize the browser's speed*, stability and user experience, while offering a rich collection of extensions and themes (including compatibility with many Firefox extensions users have come to love and rely on)."
With the recent news that Firefox would become more like Chrome in the way it handles extensions, Pale Moon could be an interesting alternative for die-hard FireFox users.
BTW I was a die-hard FireFox user, but after many years of trying to get recent PortableApps versions to perform like PortableApps FF24, I have given up on all variations of FireFox and started to switch to PortableApps QupZilla. The issues are not with PortableApps packaging; that works fine and has worked fine for many years across many different apps. The primary issue is with the FireFox app, not the PC or FF extensions, as parallel installs on similar hardware platforms using the same OS and related utilities has proven.
FWIW a desktop machine is not a suitable replacement for a laptop!
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
Firefox's current releases are faster both objectively and subjectively. Current stable Firefox is much faster than Pale Moon.
Pale Moon is based on the older Firefox ESR releases at present. Once those ESR releases drop support for the old extensions model, it's unlikely anyone will even be maintaining any of those old extensions. It is highly unlikely that any large number of developers will support extensions for a browser with an extremely small userbase like Pale Moon.
Keep in mind that the XUL and XPCOM extensions will have a time period of 12 to 18 months to be updated to the new model and that they will be introducing APIs to improve on that new model over that time period. The two big reasons for this change are security and speed. The existing extension model has major security issues and can have a large speed impact on the browser.
If Pale Moon were to become more of a true fork, it would be extremely difficult for them to maintain the Firefox code base as well as their changes due to its sheer size. Only a handful of developers regularly work on Pale Moon whereas hundreds regularly work on Firefox.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I have thought for some time before replying. Basically I see the old FF extension ecosystem dying off as XUL and XPCOM extension is slowly "killed off" by the "lead" FF development team. I think that will drive away most developers from FF. I think FF will slowly disappear like it's predecessor, Netscape Navigator.
Why should independent developers expend valuable time and effort on FF extensions that have to follow "new rules" (nothing appears to be "portable" [pun intended] between XUL/XPCOM and the new system) when FF is becoming more like Chrome every day? I think that is a serious question for any developer.
If FF becomes more like Chrome, then what is the differentiator between FF and Chrome? That is the question I am asking myself.
With the now unpredictable performance of FF across multiple platforms that I own, and with the FF developers deciding their browser needs every "bit of 'chrome' under the sun and a kitchen sink" built into the FF code, then why continue to use FF? I think every user has to ask themselves that question, and members of the community have already started to ask those questions.
When I have a look inside FF "about:config" and I notice many interesting things. Sure "sync" suggests it is turned off in it's GUI "options" panel, but every "sync" feature is still "enabled" in "about:config". John, that's from a default PortableApps install. Then there is some other new feature that was recently added that has the user community "up in arms" concerning conflicts in licensing; it was something that used to be an extension but is now a "built-in" feature. Then there is the FF "geo tracking" nonsense, also easily found in "about:config" but not documented in FF "options" panels.
Seriously John, the FF model is not the major security issue here. The FF model is flawed by design and based in history. No the issue with FF is it's uncaring "lead" FF development team that is completely "tone deaf" to it's user community. The small "lead" FF development team and their attitudes towards the community and the reasons FF came into existence in the first place have all been pointed out in other public forums by numerous members of the FF user community.
John, I give you great credit for listening, thoughtful responses, and a good packaging system. That sets you leap years beyond all of the skills, both technical and social, of the "lead" FF development team. At some point I think you ought to do the honorable thing an just drop FF all together from your very respectable archives as FF will become more trouble than it's worth.