Basilisk web browser

Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
Message
Author
FONZACUS
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:03 pm

Basilisk web browser

#1 Post by FONZACUS »

https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
...
Basilisk is a free and Open Source XUL-based web browser, featuring the well-known Firefox-style interface and operation. It is based on the Goanna layout and rendering engine (a fork of Gecko) and builds on the Unified XUL Platform (UXP), which in turn is a fork of the Mozilla code base without Servo or Rust.
...
This browser is created and maintained by the team behind Pale Moon, and is a fully independent fork of the Mozilla/Firefox code.
...
profiles are stored in /appdata/roaming, unlike the officially supported portable version.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Basilisk web browser

#2 Post by Midas »

The present topic slipped my attention -- FYI, Basilisk was first mentioned by billon at viewtopic.php?p=88400#p88400.

A recent Basilisk status update at Ghacks.net: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/04/29/re-ba ... -released/.
Basilisk is offered as a portable version and installer so that you may test it on Windows and Linux machines to see how compatible it is. The source code is also available.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: basilisk web browser

#3 Post by webfork »

Since Microsoft appears to be dumping Edge, there's been more attention given to alternative browsers. As such I wanted to add a few notes on this project:
  • Basilisk is still quite clearly asserts itself as "development/beta" software with "potential defects" right on the home page. Proceed with caution.
  • There's a lot of things unclear about this project including what Pale Moon does vs. what Basalisk does. The reasons for two separate browser projects (and for that matter why they forked from the Mozilla browser) should be clearly stated front and center. Similarly, why use these browsers versus other tools? I try very hard to make sure all the programs listed here on the site state up front why you would care about them. Is the program lightweight? Faster? Better interface? Does it enable usage of old browser plugins? The current Pale Moon entry is light on details for a reason and I suspect the (eventual) Basalisk entry will be equally vague.
  • As stated several times here on the site, I'm still not a fan of the vague licensing for Pale Moon e.g. "Our source code is for the most part covered by the Mozilla Public License v2.0. " https://www.palemoon.org/licensing.shtml ... I assume these are the same terms with Basilisk.
That said, I do want to that I really appreciate the time and energy given to portability and their portable version by the Pale Moon team. That's unusual and appreciated.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Basilisk web browser

#4 Post by Midas »

Basilisk latest version is v2019.03.27 (changelog at https://www.basilisk-browser.org/releasenotes.shtml).

Specular
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: basilisk web browser

#5 Post by Specular »

While the site notes that its XUL support means such addons are 'alive and well' it's unfortunately not as straightforward, since Mozilla themselves have killed most of the future use of such addons by deleting them entirely from their addon site.

The only way any user now will get their hands on such deprecated addons is if they had copies already or know someone that does. It's kind of crazy to think that around 15 years of addon history could get wiped by the browser company who allowed it to flourish but they've burned that bridge now and are continuing with WebExtensions instead.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Basilisk web browser

#6 Post by Midas »

@Specular: you might want to have a look at the following URLs -- among other possibilities... :|

https://addons.basilisk-browser.org/extensions/
https://github.com/JustOff/ca-archive
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/seamonkey/

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: basilisk web browser

#7 Post by webfork »

Specular wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 6:14 am It's kind of crazy to think that around 15 years of addon history could get wiped by the browser company who allowed it to flourish but they've burned that bridge now and are continuing with WebExtensions instead.
It's really lose-lose decision. If Mozilla doesn't put away the old toys, no one's going to make updated versions for the new browser. At the same time, by closing a door on a lot of work from many devs, users, and reviewers, they put in jeopardy the notion that they're genuinely an open organization. I don't envy whomever was in charge of that decision.

The truth is a large number of these tools represents a serious security concern and Mozilla is keen to avoid that stench. The project is really only one major vulnerability away from losing their status as the only real alternative to Chrome and it's gazillion knock-offs. I'm certain that whole add-on signing issue was a huge PR black eye. Meanwhile Google's browser add-ons have basically eavesdropped on you and then makes incremental privacy additions that would disappear tomorrow if it weren't for continued competition from Mozilla.

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: basilisk web browser

#8 Post by SYSTEM »

webfork wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:18 pm
Specular wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 6:14 am It's kind of crazy to think that around 15 years of addon history could get wiped by the browser company who allowed it to flourish but they've burned that bridge now and are continuing with WebExtensions instead.
It's really lose-lose decision. If Mozilla doesn't put away the old toys, no one's going to make updated versions for the new browser. At the same time, by closing a door on a lot of work from many devs, users, and reviewers, they put in jeopardy the notion that they're genuinely an open organization. I don't envy whomever was in charge of that decision.
Even more important for Mozilla was that maintaining support for old add-ons which accessed Firefox internals limited how much Mozilla could refactor Firefox code. It made it difficult to make changes, including performance improvements.

Firefox 57, "Firefox Quantum", was a huge leap forward in performance, and removing support for legacy add-ons was the main reason.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

bitcoin
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: Basilisk web browser

#9 Post by bitcoin »

is Basilisk actually portable yet?

i was avoiding using it for now

Specular
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: basilisk web browser

#10 Post by Specular »

webfork wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:18 pmIt's really lose-lose decision. If Mozilla doesn't put away the old toys, no one's going to make updated versions for the new browser.

The truth is a large number of these tools represents a serious security concern and Mozilla is keen to avoid that stench.
SYSTEM wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:50 pmEven more important for Mozilla was that maintaining support for old add-ons which accessed Firefox internals limited how much Mozilla could refactor Firefox code.

Firefox 57, "Firefox Quantum", was a huge leap forward in performance, and removing support for legacy add-ons was the main reason.
Probably didn't come across as clearly as I intended but what I meant wasn't about Mozilla removing support from the browser itself, which they were on course to do, but rather about the deletion of all XUL addons from their addon site and how that affects users of browser forks like Basilisk/Pale Moon/etc that continue to keep XUL support.

Obviously allowing further updates to them wouldn't be feasible but the only real counter-arguments I've seen against leaving those addons in an archived, read-only mode is if some security flaw was discovered later it would require Mozilla to re-evaluate the affected addons' presence on the site. That and any storage/bandwidth cost for the fewer users sticking with older FF versions (though I seriously doubt Mozilla haven't kept a non-public archive of all those addons).

That said, all addons were vetted and only certain addons would from time-to-time be found violating their terms. In theory FF's previous addon architecture allowed for full access but in practice devs did surprisingly well given this.

I often think about the fact that Stylish though, a popular addon that was also continually featured on Chrome's addon site (using the same addon architecture FF now uses), sucked up user browsing history and went unnoticed for a couple years despite reports about it. They were apparently coasting along on the trust built by the previous dev before he sold it.

Midas wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 7:35 am @Specular: you might want to have a look at the following URLs -- among other possibilities... :|

https://github.com/JustOff/ca-archive
I'm curious how this one works. You install it as an addon and somehow get links to previous addons? I know there were some efforts to create a backup before they were deleted by Mozilla but I wasn't sure what eventuated or how to access them.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: basilisk web browser

#11 Post by Midas »

Specular wrote: I'm curious how this one works. You install it as an addon and somehow get links to previous addons? I know there were some efforts to create a backup before they were deleted by Mozilla but I wasn't sure what eventuated or how to access them.
Although I'm still running SeaMonkey alongside the latest Firefox, I haven't tested anything there so I can only quote the site back to you...
Installation: This add-on has been tested with the following browsers (in alphabetical order): Basilisk RC1+, Firefox ESR 45-52, Firefox 45-58b, Pale Moon 27+, SeaMonkey 2.40+ and Waterfox 55+. In order to install it into Firefox release or beta, you need to disable the extensions signing requirement. Multi-process mode (e10s) is not supported. The installation package is located in the releases section.


Having said that, let me just add that my general stance is that between browser dwindling competition and functionality deprecation, daily hard and software vulnerabilities and private and public agents engaging in widespread malicious computer hacking, all personal computing is right now is a disaster area waiting to reveal itself... :cry:

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Basilisk web browser

#12 Post by webfork »

bitcoin wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 3:54 pm is Basilisk actually portable yet?

i was avoiding using it for now
I would continue to avoid it as it is early stage. As to portability, they have a ZIP distro that I assume is likely portable but I will not test it until development comes along.
SYSTEM wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 12:50 pm Firefox 57, "Firefox Quantum", was a huge leap forward in performance, and removing support for legacy add-ons was the main reason.
Interesting. I always remember freeware and open source projects popping up where users would suggest one or another feature as a "plugin" but I always wondered if that would create it's own problems. At least for the Mozilla project, that appears to be the case.

bitcoin
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: Basilisk web browser

#13 Post by bitcoin »

webfork wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 10:30 am
bitcoin wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 3:54 pm is Basilisk actually portable yet?

i was avoiding using it for now
I would continue to avoid it as it is early stage. As to portability, they have a ZIP distro that I assume is likely portable but I will not test it until development comes along.
fwiw, i downloaded the 64-bit ZIP archive that's on their main download page yesterday and ran it - for me on Win 7 Pro it leaves about 20 MB of detritus at User>AppData>Roaming>Moonchild>Basilisk and another 5 MB at User>AppData>Local>Moonchild>Basalisk

both appear to contain profile folders and data

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Basilisk web browser

#14 Post by webfork »

bitcoin wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 11:39 am leaves about 20 MB of detritus at User>AppData>Roaming>Moonchild>Basilisk and another 5 MB at User>AppData>Local>Moonchild>Basalisk
Ah guess it's just an installer-free version. Thanks for testing.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 6710
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Basilisk web browser

#15 Post by Midas »

Before condemning Basilisk for not being natively portable, one should take care to test some of the well documented Firefox portability remedies -- which I haven't done, but would certainly do, if I had the the leisure and the will to test this Firefox browser clone...

Please try either one of the following:

  • Basilisk.exe -P [PathToProfileFolder]
  • Placing a 'profile.ini' with the content below alongside 'Basilisk.exe'

    Code: Select all

    [profile]
    path=profiles
    isRelative=1
I suspect Basilisk will be prone to the same stealth shortcomings as its Pale Moon ancestor (see the database entry for details: https://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=1978).

Post Reply