| Honestly I wouldn't go anywhere near Palemoon. Not unless you feel like using an antiquated browser such as Firefox 28 which is where it forked. I expect their shills will be deployed to this thread shortly. It's certainly not more secure when you've got all your extensions running at highest level privileged (not WebExtensions), the sandboxing code "removed" because mattatobin a Palemoon developer says that it "doesn't work", without giving any specific use case and their non-compliance with the HSTS spec RFC6797 [0]. There's probably countless other things wrong with it, but that's what I spotted after a cursory look. Their developers are also toxic https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/375 that's all the proof you ever needed. Many of your sentiments there are demonstrated in that very thread. One of the developers (mattatobin) repeatedly avoids answering my questions and just says "fake news" and goes all trumpian on me. Don't bother trying to ask on their forums about this they will just delete your posts and go on about "the untrue narrative" without addressing your questions. If you contact them on twitter they will block you. It seemed like their while mode of operation was very "alt-right" if that makes sense. They live in a small "social bubble" it would seem. I also found it rather lol that a so called "privacy browser" has to resort to using google advertising on their main page. 15:05:34 www.palemoon.org -- script https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js 3p
15:05:34 www.palemoon.org -- script https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js 3p
15:05:34 www.palemoon.org -- script https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js 3p
[0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797#section-8.4 |
I don't need or want sandboxing for my extensions -- I can take care of my own sandboxing external to the browser profile instance. And I don't want it either, because it makes them less flexible and powerful. XUL based extensions turn my browser into a power tool, Chrome is a toy.
I don't know why you are upset, because the vast majority of the Internet agrees with you. Most people are happy to have Google control their web browsing experience. Why do you engage with them if they make you so upset? Why are you threatened by a small group of users who want a browser their own way?
As for the HSTS thing, I'm sorry nobody explained that, I'd be happy to elaborate a bit more for you. My computer belongs to me, and I get to decide what runs on it. I can choose to use Palemoon how I want to. Not implementing HSTS according to the RFC is harming nobody except potentially myself. The way HSTS is written is self serving for the powers that be. It reenforces the SSL certificate infrastructure, and takes away user choice in the name of "security". For practical reasons, being able to disable HSTS is important for development. And even without Palemoon, there are still plenty of ways to bypass HSTS. All Palemoon is doing is saving users time.
Besides, Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft happily trample on the RFCs when it's convenient for them. Chrome itself was infamous for this when it first came out. I remember seeing Chrome users clobbering webservers and violating protocol to get slightly more speed. Of course, Chrome now sets the standards.
I have to disagree with your characterization of Palemoon users as fascists.
If you don't like Palemoon, then you are more than welcome to not use it and leave the community alone. The Palemoon community represents a dying breed. Soon enough, most hardware will be forced to use their browser, and will only be permitted to go to websites that they approve of. And mandatory DRM. Mozilla also loves DRM.
Anyway, if you have any more questions I'd be happy to answer.