
Basilisk was reforked by the Pale Moon team and a new release is available - AnarchistNode7
http:&#x2F;&#x2F;basilisk-browser.org&#x2F;download.shtml<p>Moonchild productions have decided to refork their Basilisk browser code in form of the Firefox 52 Esr Base code, as their first attempt using a code beyond FX 52 was impossible to use for their reasons because of all the new code (Rust and so on) was too hard to remove.<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;MoonchildProductions&#x2F;UXP - the new repository of Basilisk new<p>UXP will be also coming to Pale Moon -  The old V24 based UI with a more modern engine behind.<p>But there is a big issue:<p>TLS 1.3 can not be implemented because Mozilla did a rewrite of NSS in a newer version of Visual Studio and Pale Moon and Basilisk, being created with an older variant of that program are so far not compatible with the requirements for TLS 1.3 related files and a work-around must be found.. if it is possible at all, which is yet highly unsure.<p>What is present since the first release of the new fork-point:<p>http:&#x2F;&#x2F;basilisk-browser.org&#x2F;releasenotes.shtml
======
bno1
Why not use mingw64 which is actively maintained instead of some ancient
visual studio version? It certainly looks possible [1]. Taking a look and Pale
Moon's dev page [2] I see that they are using VS2012.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Build_Instructions/Compiling_Mozilla_With_Mingw)
[2]
[https://developer.palemoon.org/Developer_Guide:Build_Instruc...](https://developer.palemoon.org/Developer_Guide:Build_Instructions/Pale_Moon/Windows)

~~~
AnarchistNode7
My personal guess is that the Pale Moon/Basilisk team has no clue how to use
other compilers.

I mean, what for another reason... logical... reason would be around for
staying with an ancient version?

And that is rather sad that they are seemingly unable to broaden their
knowledge.

If you maintain a browser project you should have at least a more broad know-
how or you should have someone on board who provides you with that if you on
your own are missing that.

I value more choice in the browser market away from the Chrome or Chrome
clones or almost Chrome clones - but at the same time i think also that the
Pale Moon team is way too arrogant and sharp tongued against Mozilla and
others seen from their own lack of abilities to find a work-around or being
able to get a more complex job done.

~~~
LordLestat
In that you are right. Moonchild, Tobin and the other ones may be able to
solve browser internal issues, but everything which is reaching a certain size
is "patches welcome".

And to make it worse, they are rather rude against Seamonkey developers or
Mozilla, or Brave or Vivaldi or against guys who dare to fulfill not 1000% the
branding rules of Moonchild when creating an own version of Pale
Moon/Basilisk.

While i would defend Pale Moon against Firefox trolls as i am in support of
minorities, i am less than appalled to see how they are acting towards certain
Linux guys or even own users who are insulted for creating forks for XP.

The whole Pale Moon project is a double edged sword.

[https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-
wip/issues/86](https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86)

That says more than anything.

------
LordLestat
My personal reason not to use Pale Moon - and instead Otter-Browser. I also
would recommend Vivaldi more than Pale Moon.

If you are creating a browser it is pure illusion to think you can also handle
engine stuff. That is such a complex matter - HTML5, CSS3, ecmascript - Take a
look in the past. Moonchild, Tobin and the others had to re-base Pale Moon to
be able to be compatible with today's web.

And now that should be possible when they are basically just doing it another
time? Stuff does not stay complex, it gets worse the more time is progressing.

And if they have been unable to implement promises or shared array or whatever
on their own.. how they actually could believe they can implement upcoming
features?

If you are forking something, make sure the engine work is done by someone
else. That is the only valid way to get stuff done and not becoming outdated.

------
AnarchistNode7
Would anyone of you use a browser which is not able to support TLS 1.3?

~~~
LordLestat
Right now, yes.

Once even TLS1.2 becomes deprecated, it is time to switch if it would be clear
that an upgrade would be impossible from the makers side of affairs.

Or the moment you have to learn from the makers that they simply can't do that
on their own.

