@ayushnix Pale Moon’s inception pre-dates Firefox 57 by many years; before its notoriety following the removal of XUL/XPCOM, it was popular among people who didn’t like Electrolysis.
I hate that Pale Moon is so behind on security because it also has nice stuff that Mozilla axed. Some things were axed for good reason, like extensions with the ability to alter browser functionality. Others were axed without good reason, like built-in RSS/Atom support.
WebExtensions that fill in missing functionality often require content injection which is problematic for a variety of reasons (try visiting a page that has a
sandbox CSP directive without
allow-scripts and see how well it works, or seeing their scripts activate too late when your underpowered machine is under load). It’s better than giving them access to browser functionality but nothing beats having features in the actual browser.
It’d be totally fine if they described their browser as a complement to a more airtight one or as a dev tool (it’s honestly a great dev tool given some addons, I’ll happily concede that). But when you describe yourself as a replacement to other browsers but lack the security architecture to back it up, you’re being irresponsible.
@Seirdy A web browser is one of the software on my setup in which I value security more than functionality although not at the cost of uBlock Origin not working at its full potential, which is why I don't use Chromium or WebKit browsers on Linux as my primary web browser. Pale Moon might be useful for a specific purpose as you've mentioned but I don't see myself using it even as a secondary web browser.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!