Which FF derivative is recommended?

"Firefox Environment Backup Extension" and "Compact Library Extension Organizer" discussion and bug reporting.

Which FF derivative is recommended?

Postby Alexo » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:21 pm

I am trying to decide between Pale moon and Waterfox.
Alexo
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Which FF derivative is recommended?

Postby cbaker_admin » Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:42 am

Personally, I have only used Pale Moon. I might give Waterfox a try someday just to see what does that other Fx clones don't.
Chuck
cbaker_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4412
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:51 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ USA

Re: Which FF derivative is recommended?

Postby Alexo » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:52 am

My understanding is that Waterfox will support both kinds of extensions.
Alexo
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Which FF derivative is recommended?

Postby BackerUpper » Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:02 am

I'd suggest Pale Moon. Excellent support and information on its forum. You could also keep an eye on the development of Basilisk, which will be 'closer' to Firefox than Pale Moon, if that's what you are looking for.
Windows 10 Pro x64 - Pale Moon browser
BackerUpper
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:59 am

Re: Which FF derivative is recommended?

Postby Alexo » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am

I prefer a browser that will support both XUL and Webextensions.
Alexo
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Which FF derivative is recommended?

Postby BackerUpper » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:14 am

That's not a simple task to achieve... perhaps Basilisk will do that, it's not clear. And Waterfox, it's not really clear where it's going either.
Windows 10 Pro x64 - Pale Moon browser
BackerUpper
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:59 am


Return to FEBE/CLEO

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron