Could you please get your facts straight about Pale Moon?

May 16, 2014, 8:14:34 PM PDT

I was forwarded from ^{link ~J99}the Firefox Support forum to here - I hope my feedback is in the correct place here, now.

Hi folks, Pale Moon developer here. Sorry about posting this in the support forum but I'd like to get this out to the people who actually frequent this place to provide support.

I've seen several occurrences on the Firefox support forum mentioning Pale Moon by users and responses by you volunteers (greatly appreciated that you try to assist people with an alternative browser), but please, if you say things about Pale Moon, can you get your information correct, so people know what they can expect with Pale Moon?

1) Pale Moon is both x86 and x64, and is available for Windows and Linux.

2) And most notably, I've seen people saying the following (which is probably taken from misinformed people at Mozillazine) about x64 Pale Moon:

"Note that those so called 64-bit builds are not based on Official source from Mozilla as there are no Win64 releases of Firefox yet and the only place to get Win64 at moment from Mozilla is on the unstable Nightly development channel and these are mainly built for breakage/regressions purposes."

That is absolutely incorrect! The fact that Mozilla only builds 64-bit binaries from its Nightly code doesn't automatically mean that Pale Moon is following suit there. Pale Moon builds both architectures from a single release-channel source tree. It's not experimental, it's stable release code. Also, technically speaking, none of the Pale Moon builds are based on "official source" since it's a separate product (an actual fork off of the ESR branch), and the source code has been significantly altered to provide the stability, performance, feature set and UI it does. It seems people have assumed Pale Moon is a simple re-build of the existing Firefox source tree; it is not. This sets it clearly apart from other alternative builds like Waterfox/Cyberfox/iceweasel/etc.

So, a kind request: In the future, would you kindly not state any other facts that you haven't verified at the source? It causes confusion among would-be Pale Moon users. Also, feel free to forward people to the Pale Moon forum http://forum.palemoon.org/ if they have questions you don't have a direct answer to; the community over there is happy to assist you in your task of providing support if it pertains to the Pale Moon alternative (and Firefox in general).

More details also: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4564

Thanks in advance for working with me to get supplied information aligned about Pale Moon.

''I was forwarded from [/questions/1001625 link ~J99]the Firefox Support forum to here - I hope my feedback is in the correct place here, now.'' Hi folks, Pale Moon developer here. Sorry about posting this in the support forum but I'd like to get this out to the people who actually frequent this place to provide support. I've seen several occurrences on the Firefox support forum mentioning Pale Moon by users and responses by you volunteers (greatly appreciated that you try to assist people with an alternative browser), but please, if you say things about Pale Moon, can you get your information correct, so people know what they can expect with Pale Moon? 1) Pale Moon is both x86 and x64, and is available for Windows and Linux. 2) And most notably, I've seen people saying the following (which is probably taken from misinformed people at Mozillazine) about x64 Pale Moon: ''"Note that those so called 64-bit builds are not based on Official source from Mozilla as there are no Win64 releases of Firefox yet and the only place to get Win64 at moment from Mozilla is on the unstable Nightly development channel and these are mainly built for breakage/regressions purposes."'' That is absolutely incorrect! The fact that Mozilla only builds 64-bit binaries from its Nightly code doesn't automatically mean that Pale Moon is following suit there. Pale Moon builds both architectures from a single release-channel source tree. It's not experimental, it's stable release code. Also, ''technically'' speaking, none of the Pale Moon builds are based on "official source" since it's a separate product (an actual fork off of the ESR branch), and the source code has been significantly altered to provide the stability, performance, feature set and UI it does. It seems people have assumed Pale Moon is a simple re-build of the existing Firefox source tree; '''it is not'''. This sets it clearly apart from other alternative builds like Waterfox/Cyberfox/iceweasel/etc. So, a kind request: In the future, would you kindly not state any other facts that you haven't verified at the source? It causes confusion among would-be Pale Moon users. Also, feel free to forward people to the Pale Moon forum http://forum.palemoon.org/ if they have questions you don't have a direct answer to; the community over there is happy to assist you in your task of providing support if it pertains to the Pale Moon alternative (and Firefox in general). More details also: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4564 Thanks in advance for working with me to get supplied information aligned about Pale Moon.

Modified by John99 on May 16, 2014, 10:28:42 PM PDT

wolfbeast71 7 posts

May 17, 2014, 4:59:13 AM PDT

As added by John99, on a topic I could not further reply to (it's locked) - FYI:

As some are interested in Palemoon because of the Firefox 29 Australis changes on the Release channel of Firefox it is also probably worth observing that the next full Release upgrade of ESR channel will also be Australis.

Again something better discussed in the other forum.

Pale Moon will not adopt Australis, not even when the back-end code base changes to the next ESR cycle, even if Firefox ESR will move to the redesigned UI as well; probably leaving Pale Moon being the only third-party flavor that still has the previous full-customization UI (I believe at least some other alternative browsers plan to integrate add-ons that layer themselves on top of Australis to restore functionality, but I don't keep tabs on that, specifically).

As added by John99, on a topic I could not further reply to (it's locked) - FYI: ''As some are interested in Palemoon because of the Firefox 29 Australis changes on the Release channel of Firefox it is also probably worth observing that the next full Release upgrade of ESR channel will also be Australis. Again something better discussed in the other forum. '' Pale Moon will not adopt Australis, not even when the back-end code base changes to the next ESR cycle, even if Firefox ESR will move to the redesigned UI as well; probably leaving Pale Moon being the only third-party flavor that still has the previous full-customization UI (I believe at least some other alternative browsers plan to integrate add-ons that layer themselves on top of Australis to restore functionality, but I don't keep tabs on that, specifically).

the-edmeister 603 posts

May 17, 2014, 6:06:00 AM PDT

IMO, the biggest concern that users at MozillaZIne have about PaleMoon is if "you guys" will be able to maintain your build over the long term. I have been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.3 and been a member at MozillaZine since then; "we" have seen 3rd party builds come and go over the the last 12 years. I for one, used a few different private un-labeled "builds" back in the days of Firefox 0.8 thru 1.5 - but one-by-one they disappeared.

We saw similar with Flock; it was developed, people started using it, Mozilla changed Firefox (I forget which major version), and all of a sudden Flock received a different rendering engine - it wasn't a Gecko browser any longer. And Netscape died for a similar reason (IMO) - it wasn't what people were used to using, with the dual Trident / Gecko rendering engines in the last couple of versions of Netscape. Although that may have led to the development of the various IE-Tab extensions that have been made for Firefox since then.

In conclusion, I wish MoonChild Productions all the best - the internet needs multiple choices of Gecko-based browsers or non-Web-Kit / Blink browsers or Trident-based, especially with Presto gone now.

IMO, the biggest concern that users at MozillaZIne have about PaleMoon is if "you guys" will be able to maintain your build over the long term. I have been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.3 and been a member at MozillaZine since then; "we" have seen 3rd party builds come and go over the the last 12 years. I for one, used a few different private un-labeled "builds" back in the days of Firefox 0.8 thru 1.5 - but one-by-one they disappeared. We saw similar with Flock; it was developed, people started using it, Mozilla changed Firefox ''(I forget which major version)'', and all of a sudden Flock received a different rendering engine - it wasn't a Gecko browser any longer. And Netscape died for a similar reason ''(IMO)'' - it wasn't what people were used to using, with the dual Trident / Gecko rendering engines in the last couple of versions of Netscape. ''Although that may have led to the development of the various IE-Tab extensions that have been made for Firefox since then.'' In conclusion, I wish MoonChild Productions all the best - the internet needs multiple choices of Gecko-based browsers or non-Web-Kit / Blink browsers or Trident-based, especially with Presto gone now.

wolfbeast71 7 posts

May 17, 2014, 8:43:47 AM PDT

Well, the problem is not that people have "concern", but rather that it's not made easier when people keep providing misinformation about the browser; If people are being told it's "a firefox knock-off" or "simple rebuild" and "not a true fork" then it's easy to incorrectly assume that it must continue to follow Firefox very closely (and thus merely postponing Australis until EoL for ESR24). Add to that the statements that x64 would be built from nightly (unstable) code and other incorrect statements about what Pale Moon is in relation to Firefox, and it starts to feel like a PR campaign against it.

All I ask is that people please not make statements based on assumptions. If you have any questions about Pale Moon, come ask "us guys" and not the people over at Mozillazine (since I don't think there are many Pale Moon users frequenting Mozillazine, for various reasons I'll not go into here).

I'm aware that it's going to be a decent amount of work to switch code base to the next ESR version because it'll have to become a more decoupled hybrid front- and back-end, but it's certainly not impossible. I also have no intention of abandoning Gecko, quite the opposite - the whole premise behind Pale Moon is to take a purely Gecko based browser and make the most efficient use of what's there.

FYI: Pale Moon is in its 5th year of publication by now - it was a slow start and, yes, it was initially (3.5/3.6 versions) just an optimized build of Firefox, but has steadily and increasingly been diverging from it, more rapidly so in the past year or 2. I have no intention of stopping development in the foreseeable future either.

Well, the problem is not that people have "concern", but rather that it's not made easier when people keep providing misinformation about the browser; If people are being told it's "a firefox knock-off" or "simple rebuild" and "not a true fork" then it's easy to incorrectly assume that it must continue to follow Firefox very closely (and thus merely postponing Australis until EoL for ESR24). Add to that the statements that x64 would be built from nightly (unstable) code and other incorrect statements about what Pale Moon is in relation to Firefox, and it starts to feel like a PR campaign against it. All I ask is that people please not make statements based on assumptions. If you have any questions about Pale Moon, come ask "us guys" and not the people over at Mozillazine (since I don't think there are many Pale Moon users frequenting Mozillazine, for various reasons I'll not go into here). I'm aware that it's going to be a decent amount of work to switch code base to the next ESR version because it'll have to become a more decoupled hybrid front- and back-end, but it's certainly not impossible. I also have no intention of abandoning Gecko, quite the opposite - the whole premise behind Pale Moon is to take a purely Gecko based browser and make the most efficient use of what's there. FYI: Pale Moon is in its 5th year of publication by now - it was a slow start and, yes, it was initially (3.5/3.6 versions) just an optimized build of Firefox, but has steadily and increasingly been diverging from it, more rapidly so in the past year or 2. I have no intention of stopping development in the foreseeable future either.

wolfbeast71 7 posts

May 18, 2014, 9:23:58 PM PDT

A well-worded post stating the apparent problem in the "Firefox realm" when it comes to Pale Moon was just made on the forum. It may provide some insight for you SUMO folks as well about why there are the misconceptions there are. http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4315&start=190#p28056

philipp 1280 posts

May 19, 2014, 6:08:07 AM PDT

then there are portions on your website that would warrant an update: Pale Moon is built from the Firefox release source code that has a large community of developers and security-aware people

then there are portions on your website that would warrant an update: ''Pale Moon is built from the Firefox release source code that has a large community of developers and security-aware people''

wolfbeast71 7 posts

May 19, 2014, 10:56:26 AM PDT

Yes, some parts of the site are in need of rewording. I'm aware of that. The FAQ section is a little stale, because I've mostly moved FAQ questions to the forum for maintainability. I'll make sure to clarify that by replacing "built from" with "based on". it actually took me a moment or two to find the quote as I though I had already tackled most of that info a long time ago; thanks for spotting it.

John99 3665 posts

May 24, 2014, 9:40:54 PM PDT

You must be getting quite an increase in downloads I imagine following the Australis Release.

I note from your comment up thread that your site information may need updating.

The majority of Firefox users are Windows users. Your browser is popularly known as a 64bit browser, although It appears you also have a 32 bit browser available.

Would I be correct to say you can not base a 64 bit browser on fully supported Firefox Windows 64 bit Release because there is no such thing, Windows 64 bit is not supported (Well it is tier 3 )

Tier-3 platforms have a maintainer or community which attempt to keep the platform working. These platforms may or may not work at any time, and often have little test coverage:

If you are to promote the browser as not using pre release code and not based on anything other than Release code then should you make it very clear to Windows users that they must download and use 32 bit Palemoon. I do not see that as happening on your site.

I do see

This also means that Pale Moon will not be built based on beta, release candidate, milestone, or other development releases of the Gecko source code (there will not be any Pale Moon "nightly", "aurora" or "beta" builds available to the public). Only relevant "Release" source code will be used for any architecture, to ensure stability.

_{edit from  http://www.palemoon.org/info.shtml}

You must be getting quite an increase in downloads I imagine following the Australis Release. I note from your comment up thread that your site information may need updating. The majority of Firefox users are Windows users. Your browser is popularly known as a 64bit browser, although It appears you also have a 32 bit browser available. Would I be correct to say you can not base a 64 bit browser on fully supported Firefox Windows 64 bit Release because there is no such thing, Windows 64 bit is not supported (Well it is [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Supported_build_configurations tier 3] ) ''Tier-3 platforms have a maintainer or community which attempt to keep the platform working. These platforms may or may not work at any time, and often have little test coverage:'' If you are to promote the browser as not using pre release code and not based on anything other than Release code then should you make it very clear to Windows users that they must download and use 32 bit Palemoon. I do not see that as happening on your site. I do see <blockquote>This also means that Pale Moon will not be built based on beta, release candidate, milestone, or other development releases of the Gecko source code (there will not be any Pale Moon "nightly", "aurora" or "beta" builds available to the public). Only relevant "Release" source code will be used for any architecture, to ensure stability.</blockquote> '''edit''' from http://www.palemoon.org/info.shtml

Modified by John99 on May 24, 2014, 9:44:51 PM PDT

wolfbeast71 7 posts

May 24, 2014, 10:44:29 PM PDT

The website has been updated shortly after my previous comment, to properly clarify a few small FAQ and other items people have apparently been confused about, that were remnants of a (now irrelevant) state of affairs in the past. Feel free to revisit the site.

Your browser is popularly known as a 64bit browser, although It appears you also have a 32 bit browser available.

I guess it depends on how you measure "popularly known". Of course I have no control at all over the "buzz" other people create or how they promote Pale Moon, so making that somehow my fault is just silly.

The website is up-to-date. The web installer defaults to 32-bit for "quick install" to avoid the few drawbacks there are for native 64-bit browsers (see below). Why is it so hard for you to understand that I use Mozilla release code as a base for my fork, and build for both architectures from the resulting Pale Moon source code? I really don't understand how you somehow try to reflect this lack of understanding back on me as a developer. It's not my fault that people have pushed the "64-bit" version more in social media. The website equally promotes both architectures, with a slight bias for 32-bit.

Would I be correct to say you can not base a 64 bit browser on fully supported Firefox Windows 64 bit Release because there is no such thing, Windows 64 bit is not supported

No, you would be incorrect. The fact that Firefox Windows 64-bit Release isn't built or published by MozCo has absolutely no bearing on what an individual and independent gecko-based/Firefox-based browser can or cannot develop, build, support or publish. You cannot determine for me what I can or cannot do in that respect and to even suggest as much is both silly and disrespectful to the effort that has been put into Pale Moon's stability. You (MozCo) not supporting or minimally supporting Windows 64 in your development is your choice. I do support Windows 64 in Pale Moon, have for years, and will continue to.

"Based on" does not mean "equal to". Analogy: Movies are "based on" books, and definitely are not "equal to".

If you are to promote the browser as not using pre release code and not based on anything other than Release code then should you make it very clear to Windows users that they must download and use 32 bit Palemoon. I do not see that as happening on your site.

Nonsense. Both architectures are Release Code (as opposed to Mozilla Firefox where 64-bit is considered tier-3 and only published on the nightly channel) -- As you have seen yourself with your quote from the Pale Moon website! People should not be told that the 64-bit version is any less release-ready, because it is not.

So please, stop trying to tell me what I can or cannot do or say on my website about my browser based on my forked and developed code, and stop spreading information to the contrary.

Once again, for the last time:

Pale Moon is 32-bit and 64-bit. Both architectures receive equal attention in development and publishing. Any bias towards the 64-bit version being "pushed to the foreground" is entirely the Internet community's doing.
Both architectures are built from release code (Pale Moon source code, NOT Firefox source code). The fact that Firefox source code may not be release-ready for Windows builds has no bearing on Pale Moon.
The few drawbacks there are for 64-bit version of the browser are in the realm of plugin availability and immature 64-bit video drivers, which are completely unrelated to the actual browser and have no bearing on the "release-ready state" of the browser.
Pale Moon is not just a rebuild of published Firefox code, it is a true fork, unlike many of the other Firefox derivatives out there.
Pale Moon has a different feature set and different configuration than any of the release Firefox browsers out there.
Pale Moon retains high levels of extension compatibility with Firefox, but that does not necessarily mean they are equal or that everything works equally.

The website has been updated shortly after my previous comment, to properly clarify a few small FAQ and other items people have apparently been confused about, that were remnants of a (now irrelevant) state of affairs in the past. Feel free to revisit the site. ''Your browser is popularly known as a 64bit browser, although It appears you also have a 32 bit browser available.'' I guess it depends on how you measure "popularly known". Of course I have no control at all over the "buzz" other people create or how they promote Pale Moon, so making that somehow my fault is just silly. The website is up-to-date. The web installer defaults to 32-bit for "quick install" to avoid the few drawbacks there are for native 64-bit browsers (see below). Why is it so hard for you to understand that I use Mozilla release code as a base for my fork, and build for both architectures from the resulting Pale Moon source code? I really don't understand how you somehow try to reflect this lack of understanding back on me as a developer. It's not my fault that people have pushed the "64-bit" version more in social media. The website equally promotes both architectures, with a slight bias for 32-bit. ''Would I be correct to say you can not base a 64 bit browser on fully supported Firefox Windows 64 bit Release because there is no such thing, Windows 64 bit is not supported'' '''No, you would be incorrect.''' The fact that Firefox Windows 64-bit Release isn't built or published by MozCo has '''absolutely no bearing on what an individual and independent gecko-based/Firefox-based browser can or cannot develop, build, support or publish'''. You cannot determine ''for'' me what I can or cannot do in that respect and to even suggest as much is both silly and disrespectful to the effort that has been put into Pale Moon's stability. You (MozCo) not supporting or minimally supporting Windows 64 in your development is your choice. I ''do'' support Windows 64 in Pale Moon, have for years, and will continue to. "Based on" does not mean "equal to". Analogy: Movies are "based on" books, and definitely are not "equal to". ''If you are to promote the browser as not using pre release code and not based on anything other than Release code then should you make it very clear to Windows users that they must download and use 32 bit Palemoon. I do not see that as happening on your site.'' Nonsense. Both architectures are Release Code (as opposed to Mozilla Firefox where 64-bit is considered tier-3 and only published on the nightly channel) -- As you have seen yourself with your quote from the Pale Moon website! People should '''not''' be told that the 64-bit version is any less release-ready, because it is not. So please, stop trying to tell me what I can or cannot do or say on my website about my browser based on my forked and developed code, and stop spreading information to the contrary. '''Once again, for the last time:''' * Pale Moon is 32-bit and 64-bit. '''Both''' architectures receive '''equal attention''' in development and publishing. Any bias towards the 64-bit version being "pushed to the foreground" is entirely the Internet community's doing. * Both architectures are built from '''release code''' (Pale Moon source code, NOT Firefox source code). The fact that Firefox source code may not be release-ready for Windows builds has no bearing on Pale Moon. * The few drawbacks there are for 64-bit version of the browser are in the realm of plugin availability and immature 64-bit video drivers, which are completely unrelated to the actual browser and have no bearing on the "release-ready state" of the browser. * Pale Moon is '''not''' just a rebuild of published Firefox code, it is a '''true fork''', unlike many of the other Firefox derivatives out there. * Pale Moon has a '''different feature set''' and different configuration than any of the release Firefox browsers out there. * Pale Moon retains high levels of extension compatibility with Firefox, but that does not necessarily mean they are equal or that everything works equally.

Andrew 1232 posts

May 25, 2014, 2:13:51 AM PDT

Both architectures are built from release code (Pale Moon source code, NOT Firefox source code). The fact that Firefox source code may not be release-ready for Windows builds has no bearing on Pale Moon.

Please provide the release code date and version and other possible information to support that.

The few drawbacks there are for 64-bit version of the browser are in the realm of plugin availability and immature 64-bit video drivers, which are completely unrelated to the actual browser and have no bearing on the "release-ready state" of the browser.

How about listing all the other drawbacks as well?

Pale Moon has a different feature set and different configuration than any of the release Firefox browsers out there.

Could you elaborate on that please?

Also, how's the security of Pale moon? As Firefox has security updates every version, how does this compare to Pale Moon?

''Both architectures are built from release code (Pale Moon source code, NOT Firefox source code). The fact that Firefox source code may not be release-ready for Windows builds has no bearing on Pale Moon. '' Please provide the release code date and version and other possible information to support that. ''The few drawbacks there are for 64-bit version of the browser are in the realm of plugin availability and immature 64-bit video drivers, which are completely unrelated to the actual browser and have no bearing on the "release-ready state" of the browser. '' How about listing all the other drawbacks as well? ''Pale Moon has a different feature set and different configuration than any of the release Firefox browsers out there. '' Could you elaborate on that please? Also, how's the security of Pale moon? As Firefox has security updates every version, how does this compare to Pale Moon?

John99 3665 posts

May 25, 2014, 2:18:47 AM PDT

HelpDesk or other Admin

Would you care to give your ruling on this please.

My opinion is that if Palemoon 64 bit for Windows is based on Firefox 64 bit for Windows it is NOT based on Firefox/Gecko fully supported code.

I consider it is correct on our site to warn potential users that

They are NOT using a browser based on fully supported Mozilla code.
They are using a browser based on code partially supported. The Mozilla support is such that we make the disclaimer^* for that code
- These platforms may or may not work at any time, and often have little test coverage:

I have no problem with it being stated that users get Palemoon Release that is entirely up to Palemoon to determine.

To me it appears

Pale Moon will not be built based on beta, release candidate, milestone, or other development releases _{{http://www.palemoon.org/info.shtml on 25th May 2014}}

can not possibly be correct if users have any chance of downloading a Windows 64bit version of Palemoon, without clear warnings that IS based on unsupported Mozilla code.

'''HelpDesk or other Admin''' '''Would you care to give your ruling on this please.''' My opinion is that if Palemoon 64 bit for Windows is based on Firefox 64 bit for Windows it is NOT based on Firefox/Gecko fully supported code. I consider it is correct on our site to warn potential users that *They are NOT using a browser based on fully supported Mozilla code. *They are using a browser based on code partially supported. The Mozilla support is such that we make the disclaimer[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Supported_build_configurations *] for that code **'''These platforms may or may not work at any time, and often have little test coverage:''''' I have no problem with it being stated that users get Palemoon Release that is entirely up to Palemoon to determine. To me it appears <blockquote> Pale Moon will not be built based on beta, release candidate, milestone, or other development releases {http://www.palemoon.org/info.shtml on 25th May 2014}</blockquote> can not possibly be correct if users have any chance of downloading a Windows 64bit version of Palemoon, without clear warnings that IS based on unsupported Mozilla code.

Modified by John99 on May 25, 2014, 2:21:13 AM PDT

user633449 503 posts

May 25, 2014, 5:11:25 AM PDT

My take on this:

This forum is a support site for Firefox. We do not support Pale Moon, and we should never try to support it on this site. We do not have articles that are written for Pale Moon (although they may be similar) nor are our contributors familiar with Pale Moon.

Pale Moon is an unsupported community fork of Firefox, and it doesn't matter if it's 32 or 64bit, it's all the same category of build, a community fork. As Pale Moon community has insisted on not implementing the New Firefox design, the product will continue to move further and further away from Release Firefox until doesn't even resemble Firefox with the exception of Gecko (When Rust and Servo are released then it won't even be Firefox anymore).

So I understand why this thread was written, and I appreciate the facts from the Pale Moon community, but since we don't support Pale Moon on this site, we can't be expected to be experts and all this bikeshedding is pointless.

My take on this: This forum is a support site for Firefox. We do not support Pale Moon, and we should never try to support it on this site. We do not have articles that are written for Pale Moon (although they may be similar) nor are our contributors familiar with Pale Moon. Pale Moon is an unsupported community fork of Firefox, and it doesn't matter if it's 32 or 64bit, it's all the same category of build, a community fork. As Pale Moon community has insisted on not implementing the New Firefox design, the product will continue to move further and further away from Release Firefox until doesn't even resemble Firefox with the exception of Gecko (When Rust and Servo are released then it won't even be Firefox anymore). So I understand why this thread was written, and I appreciate the facts from the Pale Moon community, but since we don't support Pale Moon on this site, we can't be expected to be experts and all this bikeshedding is pointless.

John99 3665 posts

May 25, 2014, 6:50:06 AM PDT

Thanks Tyler,
I have removed the [attn admin] marking, and will continue to caution potential users of Palemoon (especially Windows 64bit), or those recommending its use; that Palemoon should not be considered to be based on Mozilla supported code.

Thanks Tyler, I have removed the [attn admin] marking, and will continue to caution potential users of Palemoon (especially Windows 64bit), or those recommending its use; that Palemoon should not be considered to be based on Mozilla supported code.

wolfbeast71 7 posts

May 25, 2014, 4:56:39 PM PDT

Thanks Tyler - That is exactly what should be done.

John & others, To address your questions:

Pale Moon source code: http://www.palemoon.org/sourcecode.shtml

Source code release dates: same as Pale Moon binary release dates.

Security updates are listed with each release in the release notes and are on-par with Firefox. It has high priority.

Pale Moon feature set comparison with Firefox: http://j.mp/pmcomptable

Bottom line: Please forward people to http://forum.palemoon.org/ for support and http://www.palemoon.org/ for general information. As said in my OP I appreciate you wanting to help Pale Moon users but it's not needed, especially if you don't have the information or facts to do so. Please be clear when you say "not based on Mozilla supported code" that it's not based on code you officially support on this forum but otherwise leave "Mozilla" out of the statement. The Pale Moon code is still Mozilla community code for the most part, considering it's based on gecko.

But please do not caution people about it either, because they have the right to make up their own mind without being biased by anyone on the Firefox support forum. Let's keep things fair for everyone, please?

I'm not discouraging people from using Firefox, either. I'd rather you don't make any discouraging statements yourself, and just forward people to the right place if they end up here with questions about a fork that isn't officially supported by you. Let people recommend whatever they want without stepping in - I regularly recommend Mozilla Firefox myself if the intended use of the browser is more in line with Firefox than with Pale Moon.

Thanks Tyler - That is exactly what should be done. John & others, To address your questions: Pale Moon source code: http://www.palemoon.org/sourcecode.shtml Source code release dates: same as Pale Moon binary release dates. Security updates are listed with each release in the release notes and are on-par with Firefox. It has high priority. Pale Moon feature set comparison with Firefox: http://j.mp/pmcomptable Bottom line: Please forward people to http://forum.palemoon.org/ for support and http://www.palemoon.org/ for general information. As said in my OP I appreciate you wanting to help Pale Moon users but it's not needed, especially if you don't have the information or facts to do so. Please be clear when you say "not based on Mozilla supported code" that it's not based on code you officially support ''on this forum'' but otherwise leave "Mozilla" out of the statement. The Pale Moon code is still Mozilla community code for the most part, considering it's based on gecko. But please '''do not''' caution people about it either, because they have the right to make up their own mind without being biased by anyone on the Firefox support forum. '''Let's keep things fair for everyone''', please? I'm not discouraging people from using Firefox, either. I'd rather you don't make any discouraging statements yourself, and just forward people to the right place if they end up here with questions about a fork that isn't officially supported by you. Let people recommend whatever they want without stepping in - I regularly recommend Mozilla Firefox myself if the intended use of the browser is more in line with Firefox than with Pale Moon.

John99 3665 posts

May 25, 2014, 9:25:44 PM PDT

No problem with telling Pale Moon users that it is Pale Moon not Mozilla that supports them.

It is likely that discussion and comparison of browsers is outside the scope of the support forum ordinarily anyhow.

The subject of browser comparison only crops up if someone is specifically saying to use an alternative browser to resolve some Mozilla issue. Let's not overlook that we also warn users against using unsupported versions of Firefox including recently outdated Mozilla Releases, stating they would be better to use an alternative browser not Firefox ! Comments are in no way picking on Pale Moon, merely clarifying it is not using fully supported Mozilla Release code.

The problem is on the Mozilla support forum people do make recommendations.

If that implies an alternative browser is a good choice and using fully supported Mozilla Release code I consider I need to enlighten the users of Mozilla fora and Mozilla products so they may make an informed choice.

Many users of Mozilla fora may be unaware there are Mozilla builds that do not get the full range of security fixes (ESR), and others (including Mozilla Windows 64 bit Firefox) that are only tier 3 community supported builds bearing an important disclaimer from Mozilla

So my personal opinion is that it would not seem unreasonable to comment

Regarding PaleMoon

Pale Moon is an unsupported community fork of Firefox, ... the product will continue to move further and further away from Release Firefox until doesn't even resemble Firefox

And possibly Regarding use of some Mozilla builds that they are not fully supported or tested.

These platforms may or may not work at any time, and often have little test coverage

P.S. related thread

[Sumo Support Policy] Recommending named browsers as alternatives to Firefox  /forums/contributors/710345

No problem with telling Pale Moon users that it is Pale Moon not Mozilla that supports them. It is likely that discussion and comparison of browsers is outside the scope of the support forum ordinarily anyhow. The subject of browser comparison only crops up if someone is specifically saying to use an alternative browser to resolve some Mozilla issue. Let's not overlook that we also warn users against using unsupported versions of Firefox including recently outdated Mozilla Releases, stating they would be better to use an alternative browser not Firefox ! Comments are in no way picking on Pale Moon, merely clarifying it is not using fully supported Mozilla Release code. The problem is on the Mozilla support forum people do make recommendations. If that implies an alternative browser is a good choice and using fully supported Mozilla Release code I consider I need to enlighten the users of Mozilla fora and Mozilla products so they may make an informed choice. Many users of Mozilla fora may be unaware there are Mozilla builds that do not get the full range of security fixes (ESR), and others (including Mozilla Windows 64 bit Firefox) that are only tier 3 community supported builds bearing an important disclaimer from Mozilla So my personal opinion is that it would not seem unreasonable to comment *Regarding PaleMoon ''Pale Moon is an unsupported community fork of Firefox, ... the product will continue to move further and further away from Release Firefox until doesn't even resemble Firefox '' *And possibly Regarding use of some Mozilla builds that they are not fully supported or tested. ''These platforms may or may not work at any time, and often have little test coverage'' --------- P.S. related thread ''[Sumo Support Policy] Recommending named browsers as alternatives to Firefox '' [/forums/contributors/710345]

Modified by John99 on May 30, 2014, 10:55:22 PM PDT

Matt 169 posts

July 12, 2014, 8:42:32 PM PDT

Probably off topic here, but why is it that Mozilla do not have a 64bit browser for windows? Based on what I have read here it can't be all that hard.

Based also on experience making mapi work on 64 bit platforms with a mix of 64bit and 32bit applications being a nightmare. The absence of a move to 64bit is worrying really. All is good while LOB applications are 32 bit, but soon I think we will see 64Bit (seen a non 64bit version of windows professional on a machine lately)

Business is already battling the 64bit office not working with 32bit LOB applications. This might see some movement to 32bit applications other than office, but I am inclined to think that will only be temporary.

Probably off topic here, but why is it that Mozilla do not have a 64bit browser for windows? Based on what I have read here it can't be all that hard. Based also on experience making mapi work on 64 bit platforms with a mix of 64bit and 32bit applications being a nightmare. The absence of a move to 64bit is worrying really. All is good while LOB applications are 32 bit, but soon I think we will see 64Bit (seen a non 64bit version of windows professional on a machine lately) Business is already battling the 64bit office not working with 32bit LOB applications. This might see some movement to 32bit applications other than office, but I am inclined to think that will only be temporary.

James 1428 posts

July 13, 2014, 6:54:11 AM PDT

For reading as Bugzilla is not a discussion forum. Bug 471090 - (tracking_win64) [meta] Windows x64 build tracking bug Bug 558448 - (support-win64) [Tracking bug] officially support Windows 64-bit builds

user633449 503 posts

July 14, 2014, 2:14:53 AM PDT

That's very offtopic, but the short answer is, 64bit Firefox isn't worth it. it will happen eventually, but the amount of work isn't worth the very minor performance gains. We have bigger fish to fry.

Also, honestly, 99% of users don't care if an app is 32bit or 64bit, nor do they understand what the difference even is. From the number of times I get asked about it I don't think many technical people really understand it either. It's easy to get caught up in marketing terms "64bit is 32bits more better!!!!!" but the simple fact is that for a browser, 64bit doesn't change all that much. It will happen, but there is no rush.

That's very offtopic, but the short answer is, 64bit Firefox isn't worth it. it will happen eventually, but the amount of work isn't worth the very minor performance gains. We have bigger fish to fry. Also, honestly, 99% of users don't care if an app is 32bit or 64bit, nor do they understand what the difference even is. From the number of times I get asked about it I don't think many technical people really understand it either. It's easy to get caught up in marketing terms "64bit is 32bits more better!!!!!" but the simple fact is that for a browser, 64bit doesn't change all that much. It will happen, but there is no rush.

Ask a Question

Explore Our Help Articles

Mozilla Account

Search Support