Pale Moon

infimum · **Joined:** Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:00 am **Posts:** 230

http://www.palemoon.org/
http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-portable.html

It's a Firefox optimized for Windows. I can attest that it's faster than the normal Firefox built for Windows.

Now, torrent and Depositfiles are the only ways to download at this point. The author should start accepting donation for server money

loin2kolpotoru · **Joined:** Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 am **Posts:** 124

Nice post thank you.

-.- · **Joined:** Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:32 pm **Posts:** 332

I think I prefer the one from portableapps still

palemoon has too many folders in it (seems too clustered for me) and it still writes to application data so nothing's really changed, palemoon isnt any stealthier. I havent really noticed a big speed difference either or any at all

donald · **Posted:** Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:54 pm

Can anyone tell me anything about what sort of entries this Firefox mod leaves?

Does this Mod include add-ons or does it copy existing Firefox profiles.

Can this Mod run simultaneously with Firefox?

Does anyone recommend it, specifically among the TPFC regulars?

If it is unacceptable could someone give the author a few pointers in what to fix?
***********************************
Has Pale Moon been submitted before??

Quoting -.-

Quote:

... it still writes to application data so nothing's really changed ...

I did a search and it seems any previous submission thread is long gone if there was one.

Also the same search did not turn up the Rejected App entry so if it was submitted it would have to predate Rejected App.

My search http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?q=Pale+Moon&m=Search

-.- · **Joined:** Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:32 pm **Posts:** 332

pale moon hasnt been submitted

I just pointed it out that it wrote to application data folder, so it isnt any stealthier than portableapp firefox...
And with no real speed improvement, (unless I've made my portableapp one speedier without knowing) I don't see any advantage to using palemoon over firefox

but I do see disadvantage is that the folder structure is uglier... ok not that big of a draw back but i like how portableapp folders are laid out lol
Also I prefer real firefox icon over palemoon icon

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3788

V3.6.8 is available!

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:25 am

Pale Moon 3.6.8a is available.

http://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml

alan7654 · **Joined:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:22 am **Posts:** 2

Pale Moon Portable 3.6.9.
Release notes at :-
http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-portable.shtml

Alan

webfork · **Posted:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:48 am

Lifehacker gave it a strong review and it looks like its just a recompile of the browser using a C compiler optimized for modern operating systems / processors.

I'm a little disappointed they didn't go with a fully GPL'd license like IceCat (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/) but I realize that's a little more complex than they probably want to get into. Unfortunately, its not clear about what license they're using and many sites are reporting it as "freeware", although its pretty clear its MPL (http://www.palemoon.org/technical.shtml).

Edit: Does seem to still be saving data to C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Local Settings\Temp folder, so clearly not stealth, but I'm not sure its still saving to AppData.

Should I add it?

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:21 am

webfork wrote:

Lifehacker gave it a strong review and it looks like its just a recompile of the browser using a C compiler optimized for modern operating systems / processors.

I'm a little disappointed they didn't go with a fully GPL'd license like IceCat (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/) but I realize that's a little more complex than they probably want to get into. Unfortunately, its not clear about what license they're using and many sites are reporting it as "freeware", although its pretty clear its MPL (http://www.palemoon.org/technical.shtml).

Pale Moon website wrote:

This also means that, under the MPL (Mozilla Public License), it suffices for me to provide a link to the Firefox source code as published by Mozilla, since no program code in it was changed (although some parts of the source tree were edited to selectively disable certain parts of the browser - this has been limited to conditional directives in header files and makefiles).

The author has edited the sources a bit but hasn't published the modified headers and makefiles. Pale Moon is within the grey area between open and closed source.

webfork wrote:

Edit: Does seem to still be saving data to C:\Documents and Settings\USER\Local Settings\Temp folder, so clearly not stealth, but I'm not sure its still saving to AppData.

http://www.palemoon.org/knownissues.shtml wrote:

3. The browser creates directories under %APPDATA%\Mozilla, specifically Mozilla\Extensions

These directories are related to the underlying Mozilla extension code. This issue is completely harmless and non-breaking; in fact, having (all) Mozilla-based applications use this one central location for extension IDs is desired.

Status: [By Design]

webfork wrote:

Should I add it?

I think yes. I'll vote Pale Moon if you add it.

guinness · **Joined:** Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am **Posts:** 3788

I don't see any harm when Portable programs save to the %TEMP% folder.

Quote:

I think yes. I'll vote Pale Moon if you add it.

You also have the ability to add to the database

webfork · **Posted:** Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:29 am

SYSTEM wrote:

The author has edited the sources a bit but hasn't published the modified headers and makefiles. Pale Moon is within the grey area between open and closed source.

I think that's really shady but that doesn't appear to be required of them. From the MPL (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html):

Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients.

It looks like they're hiding in the umbra of that 6 or 12 month bit here. There are a variety of reasons to hang on to code in the initial stages of a project but that they haven't even made a clear point that its on its way? Sketchy. Still, I have little doubt Mozilla will use legal means to make that source code available after the time period is over.

webfork wrote:

Should I add it?

SYSTEM wrote:

I think yes. I'll vote Pale Moon if you add it.

guinness wrote:

You also have the ability to add to the database

Haha ... I'll get it in a few hours.

webfork · **Posted:** Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:21 am

Posted:

Pale Moon Portable - http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1978

freakazoid · **Joined:** Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm **Posts:** 618

Saving the settings in the "temp" folder is a little worrying... let's say you wipe that folder out with a delete program, then you'll have to resave the settings.

Would like to see a JauntePE version.

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:09 pm

webfork wrote:

SYSTEM wrote:

The author has edited the sources a bit but hasn't published the modified headers and makefiles. Pale Moon is within the grey area between open and closed source.

I think that's really shady but that doesn't appear to be required of them. From the MPL (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html):

Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients.

It looks like they're hiding in the umbra of that 6 or 12 month bit here. There are a variety of reasons to hang on to code in the initial stages of a project but that they haven't even made a clear point that its on its way? Sketchy. Still, I have little doubt Mozilla will use legal means to make that source code available after the time period is over.

The author has published the modifications!

http://www.palemoon.org/news.shtml wrote:

It's been on the to-do list for a long time (too long) - fixed now!

Pale Moon

Who is online