megaman wrote:
Okay, let me get this straight.
He/she jumps in out of nowhere and suggests Palemoon.
LoudNoise simply was telling the user that he is sick and tired of fanboys pimping their browser of choice.
I don't walk into Mozilla's or IE's forums and start saying, "Chrome is great, it's better than (browser targeted)."
Not exactly. as far as I can tell it's on-topic. Pale Moon is a solution for what is discussed, unlike other browsers that could be offered. But the staple answer given is:
Palemoon is nothing more then Firefox with some accessibility, child protection and reporting items removed and compiled for 64 bit processors. They simply don't have the number of people necessary to maintain this for very long and certainly don't have the number of folks needed to maintain a true fork.
That is what bugs me, personally, of the mods over there. Anyone trying to say anything but what they keep repeating (and which is totally incorrect, I might add, as the pending "ESR-parity" build suggested by mattatobin will show) is shot down without even attempting to verify their own statements.
What's wrong with what I quoted there? Everything. (yes, that is literally true. not a single part of the statement is correct) "Nothing more than frefox"? wrong, check the features list. "just removed accessibility, parental controls"? Wrong - still there, just disabled when building. "[just] compiled for 64-bit processors"? Not just - seems they think Pale Moon is Waterfox or something. "Don't have the manpower to maintain this for very long"? Running close to 5 years now. "Not enough manpower to maintain a true fork"? Do a source tree comparison - it's a fork and has been for a long time. Why else would I make a point of posting the source code to comply with the MPL? 