dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1045

siljaline
I'm lovin' that double wide
Premium Member
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC

siljaline

Premium Member

Pale Moon confirms browser will not ship with EME ads Australis

Martin Brinkmann writes:
quote:
There is no doubt about it that Mozilla has improved the Firefox web browser a lot ever since it switched to the rapid release cycle. I'm referring to performance and web standards improvements first and foremost.

There is also no doubt that Mozilla made several questionable decisions in that time as well. The controversial launch of the new Australis interface in Firefox 29, announcement that the organization will integrate Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) into the browser, or that it will display sponsored tiles on the browser's new tab page.
»www.ghacks.net/2014/05/2 ··· stralis/

anonomeX
@71.207.157.x

anonomeX

Anon

In other words, if you want to watch video content from sites like Netflix and Amazon in your browser, then you'll have to use a browser other than Pale Moon.

There's also no doubt, Martin, that Australis follows the latest application UI design standards first and foremost as well. The fact that Mozilla chose to also remove some useful features (like the Add-on bar) is regrettable but hardly a good reason to abandon Firefox for a lesser product (just my opinion of course). Who hasn't installed add-ons to get features they want in Firefox?

Still, after my long testing of Firefox 29 and Australis, I'm only using one add-on that I wasn't using before (which I wish I'd been using all along), and a couple that I was using before I no longer use because they're no longer needed (features built-in to 29). So, a better interface, fewer add-ons needed.

The only add-on I truly need is Stylish--to customize the scrollbars, which requires user agent [sheet] (true for every release of Firefox).

MarkRH
Premium Member
join:2005-02-08
Edmond, OK
ARRIS BGW210-700
ARRIS TM3402
Asus RT-AC68

MarkRH to siljaline

Premium Member

to siljaline
From what I've read, if you have Silverlight installed, which Netflix uses to play video files, then it doesn't matter if the browser itself has this stuff in it or not. I think the browser would need to have it if you want it to play natively via HTML5 and not require the Silverlight plug-in.

anonomeX
@71.207.157.x

anonomeX

Anon

Yep, but Netflix is getting away from Silverlight (as is Microsoft). HTML5 is the future, as is EME. DRM has been, is, and will continue to be a fact of life when viewing such content (in browsers and devices).

goalieskates
Premium Member
join:2004-09-12
land of big

goalieskates to anonomeX

Premium Member

to anonomeX
said by anonomeX :

In other words, if you want to watch video content from sites like Netflix and Amazon in your browser, then you'll have to use a browser other than Pale Moon.

I think you just told us what you want, not what the rest of us want. It's a common mistake, especially by the young or not really technical.

If your movie-viewing habits trump security and/or common sense, and that's what you're calling the future, well ... the future looks a little bleak.

anonomeX
@71.207.157.x

anonomeX

Anon

I, personally, only watch movies via my Roku (and sometimes my Blu-ray player). The plug-ins for Flash and Silverlight are actually disabled in all of the browsers I might use for streaming anything. I'm also retired after 25+ years as a programmer/analyst/systems engineer, so, not all that young.

(Your attempt at superiority falls flat.)

Yes, the future of the Internet does look bleak, indeed (if the Comcasts and Verizons have anything to say about it).

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to siljaline

Premium Member

to siljaline
said by siljaline:

Martin Brinkmann writes:

quote:
There is no doubt about it that Mozilla has improved the Firefox web browser a lot ever since it switched to the rapid release cycle. I'm referring to performance and web standards improvements first and foremost.

There is also no doubt that Mozilla made several questionable decisions in that time as well. The controversial launch of the new Australis interface in Firefox 29, announcement that the organization will integrate Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) into the browser, or that it will display sponsored tiles on the browser's new tab page.
»www.ghacks.net/2014/05/2 ··· stralis/

 
Yes, I read that article, and my spirits are lifted.

To ME, it means that at least for the foreseeable future, those who now use (or would use) FireFox will have more choice, and y'all here KNOW how I feel about choice.

siljaline
I'm lovin' that double wide
Premium Member
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC

siljaline

Premium Member

We're all hopeful Mozilla won't bork the next release too badly.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
These daze, when I think of 'Bork', especially in that context, the first thing which enters my mind is FaceBork.

And it used to to be 1st, but now is 2nd : The Swedish Chef, as in "Bork, Bork, Bork".

Then there was 'The Bork Collective'. - No, wait, that was Borg.
redwolfe_98
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11

redwolfe_98 to siljaline

Premium Member

to siljaline
i have the impression that palemoon is just firefox 24.5 ESR, rebranded..

i imagine that, whatever palemoon does, it will just be one version or another of "firefox", rebranded..

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

2 edits

Davesnothere to siljaline

Premium Member

to siljaline
said by siljaline:

We're all hopeful Mozilla won't bork the next release too badly.

 
Speaking of updates, I just 'installed' Pale Moon Portable 24.5.0 to test (actually I guess I DID install it, to a networked hard drive in its own folder), and what does it do not long after launch but promptly do a pop-up, offering me an update, and mentioning that it was version 24.6.0, IIRC.

I closed the pop-up, and went into options to see how things were set, and PM was set to check and offer, but NOT to get and install, so THAT behaviour was a match.

So far, so good.

Next, I went to the 'About PaleMoon' screen, and asked it to manually check from there.

It did, and automatically downloaded what it found, and presented me with an 'Install Now' button.

I closed that screen and then exited PaleMoon.

Next I restarted PM, and after a longer than usual wait, PM was back, looking no different.

I checked the 'About PaleMoon' screen again, and now it reported version 24.6.0.

This is pretty much the same dishonesty which has been lamented to be the behaviour of FireFox 28 and earlier, in the next-linked thread, and in other places.

»Firefox dishonesty

If Pale Moon developers wished to add 'just one more thing' (RIP, Peter Falk) to their 'Won't Do' list of FireFox characteristics, not doing THAT for updates would be a leading candidate, IMNSHO.

therube
join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD

therube

Member

As Pale Moon is based on an older version of FF, which did not respect the check for updates - correctly, then unless Pale Moon backports the code from FF 29 which (finally) fixed that issue, then there is no reason to assume that Pale Moon would/should have done anything different.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
Yet PM incorporates the newer FF Security fixes.

Hmmmm....

Anyway, then on the same basis as your last comment, should we also expect the FireFox 24.x esr series to still exhibit this same (mis)behaviour ?

therube
join:2004-11-11
Randallstown, MD

therube

Member

> should we also expect the FireFox 24.x esr series to still exhibit this same (mis)behaviour ?

Yes.
Though it checks for updates on the "esr" channel.
So while it will update say 24.3.esr to 24.5.esr, it would not update to FF 29.
Though once the next esr level comes out (31 or whatever it may be), at that point 24.5.esr would update to 31.0.esr. (And then 31 would also have the fix.)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by therube:

....Though once the next esr level comes out (31 or whatever it may be), at that point 24.5.esr would update to 31.0.esr.

(And then 31 esr would also have the fix.)

 
AND the Australis UI.
EdmundGerber
join:2010-01-04

EdmundGerber to therube

Member

to therube
said by therube:

As Pale Moon is based on an older version of FF, which did not respect the check for updates - correctly, then unless Pale Moon backports the code from FF 29 which (finally) fixed that issue, then there is no reason to assume that Pale Moon would/should have done anything different.

And yet this is the first time it's done this. Even though the previous code would have already had that update error.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20 to Davesnothere

Premium Member

to Davesnothere
Yes, I just got caught by the Fx 24 ESR (and Thunderbird) drive by install bug on Pale Moon. (I had downloaded and installed 24.6.0 64bit but the latest version is 24.6.1). I am brand new to Pale Moon (well, I had it years ago when it first started but not since then) and had not yet read that much about Pale Moon so I was ignorant about it being based on Fx 24 ESR code. No wonder it has the bug!

I think the Pale Moon dev should fix this because he plans to stay on this Fx 24 ESR code for the foreseeable future.
Mele20

Mele20 to redwolfe_98

Premium Member

to redwolfe_98
said by redwolfe_98:

i have the impression that palemoon is just firefox 24.5 ESR, rebranded.

No, it's not. My default browser is Fx 24.5 ESR. It''s a puny 32bit browser. I have Pale Moon 64 bit now. It's faster than Fx with exactly the same extensions and seems to render videos better.

If you read the Pale Moon developer's history pages it is VERY CLEAR that Pale Moon has been diverging sharply recently from its relative Fx. The philosophy behind the two browsers is quite different and getting even more different. Pale Moon qualifies as a MAJOR FORK of Fx and with the announcement that Pale Moon will not have Australis it cements Pale Moon as a major fork and is a not nice milestone for Mozilla (but a good one for us users whom Mozilla has decided to ignore).

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20
said by Mele20:

Yes, I just got caught by the Fx 24 ESR (and Thunderbird) drive by install bug on Pale Moon. (I had downloaded and installed 24.6.0 64bit but the latest version is 24.6.1)....

 
Interesting.

I should mention first that either during or immediately after my reported upthread experience of going from PM 24.5.0 to 24.6.0, that I also chose to set PM to not auto-check for updates at all.

= = = = =

So, after reading your posts about your 24.6.0 to 24.6.1 upgrade, I went back to my now 24.6.0 PM 32-bit Portable install, to see what would happen if I forced a MANUAL check from the 'About PM' screen, to tempt the dreaded 'not-so-manual' 'semi-drive-by' FF/PM update.

Upon my click to check, it found something, did not identify it to me, summarily downloaded it to somewhere also unknown to me, and presented me with a 'Click-Me' button to apply this mystery update.

THIS time, I followed thru, it applied whatever it had grabbed, and it restarted PM.

So I returned to the 'About PM' screen, and it still reported 24.6.0.

I asked it to check for updates again, and same result as just above happened.

After several iterations of this semi-interactive loop, I grew fatigued at the non-result, and then manually exited and relaunched PM.

STILL 24.6.0 was reported, though THIS time, I got the update popup, which should not have happened due to my setting things earlier to not auto-check at all.

PM must have noticed the not yet applied update in its temp folder, and decided to nag me anyway, IMO.

Next, I went to the PM site and manually fetched the offline installer for PM 24.6.1 Portable 32-bit.

Then, I again manually exited PM.

I installed it to overwrite my current 24.6.0, and relaunched PM.

PM only THEN reported 24.6.1, and the UI looked unchanged, and seemed to behave fine.

= = = = =

So, are the PM devs already working on fixing the inherited 'not-so-manual' 'semi-drive-by' update, and just not completed the task ?

Can anyone else duplicate my experience with a Pale Moon standard non-portable 32-bit install ? (or with the portable like mine)

carpetshark3
Premium Member
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO

carpetshark3

Premium Member

Mine still says 2.4.50 x64. Haven't seen the nag screen again, either. I must have upset the applecart when I pulled the plug.
I don't have the temp folder - I DL the EXE.

I'll go get the 24.6.1 EXE and install that.

Now if Pale Moon wants to make my life easier, with autoinstall put out a DEB file instead of a TAR GZ for Kubuntu. It isn't in the repository.