Pale Moon - 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
infimum
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:00 am

Pale Moon - web browser

#1 Post by infimum » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:01 am

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 :)

User avatar
loin2kolpotoru
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 am

Re: Pale Moon

#2 Post by loin2kolpotoru » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:17 pm

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Nice post thank you.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

-.-
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:32 pm

Re: Pale Moon

#3 Post by -.- » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:34 pm

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
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:14 am
Location: knoxville TN USA

Re: Pale Moon

#4 Post by donald » 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 -.-
... 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.p ... n&m=Search

-.-
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:32 pm

Re: Pale Moon

#5 Post by -.- » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:00 pm

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

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#6 Post by guinness » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:01 am

V3.6.8 is available!
Added 179 Applications: Portable

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Pale Moon

#7 Post by SYSTEM » Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:25 am

Pale Moon 3.6.8a is available.

http://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 12th playlist: November 1, 2018

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

Re: Pale Moon

#8 Post by alan7654 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:39 am

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

Alan

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7943
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#9 Post by webfork » 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?

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Pale Moon

#10 Post by SYSTEM » 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. :)
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 12th playlist: November 1, 2018

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#11 Post by guinness » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:09 am

I don't see any harm when Portable programs save to the %TEMP% folder.
I think yes. I'll vote Pale Moon if you add it. :)
You also have the ability to add to the database :)
Added 179 Applications: Portable

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7943
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#12 Post by webfork » 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.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7943
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon

#13 Post by webfork » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:21 am


freakazoid
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Pale Moon

#14 Post by freakazoid » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:09 pm

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.
is it stealth? ;)

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Pale Moon

#15 Post by SYSTEM » 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!
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 12th playlist: November 1, 2018

Post Reply