{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiedhufix3ktwlh2zuotin6elxdubaznvdli7hrzq3u4taeic3cdra",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mlxmettenut2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33365&p=274113#p274113",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-16T08:56:54.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> I think another apology might be in order here. I can only speak for myself, of course.\n>\n> My own attitude towards GTK2 itself is quite weak. I do not know the difference between how a GTK2 and GTK3 interface would appear, for nobody has ever set them side by side before me. My decision to install the GTK2 version of Pale Moon after Pusser’s builds for Debian 10 ceased was following the rule of thumb to favour the older branch of something, without any further thought on the matter, and my ill informed comments earlier in this thread (which I might even request later be deleted) were in the same spirit. As far as my actual knowledge goes, there is nothing chaining Pale Moon to GTK2 beyond NPAPI support, and your off-topic remark satisfies me this last remaining link can be, and is being, broken. Your comments have, in fact, moved me to think that installing the GTK3 version if I should ever need reinstall Pale Moon would be wise. A better rule of thumb would be _use the latest version you think you can trust_ , and you have earned it.\n>\n> Empirically, I have been moving forwards at about the proper times to keep in step, my own steps always slow and measured: from XP to 7 in 2012, from 7 to Debian 10 in 2020 and plans for the future already discussed here. I gave up NoScript a bit late, when I felt comfortable doing so, but have not looked back since. I confess that I look on the MSFN people with respect, their difficulties in keeping to earlier Windows versions basically akin to those which you face at Google’s hands. Being able to decide whether or when to adopt a new technology is important to me, a separate matter to how I end up deciding in each particular case. I cannot say I fault others for choosing otherwise. They seem to be taking care of themselves well enough (as with Roy Tam’s builds) that you need not burden yourself with their care.\n\nAww, I appreciate this a lot, and I'm sorry if I made you feel bad.\n\nDon't worry, this isn't your fault. It's just... something that's been building for years that sort of surfaced because of this situation. I honestly felt kind of bad about that post after I left it, thought it was a bit of an overreaction on my part... almost didn't post it, but then this thread was bumped again and the OP replied to another thread saying we don't need to worry about moving to a new toolkit because GTK2 will be supported by him (I was kinda tired and may have misunderstood) and I was like, \"That does it, if he's going to join in the other threads where we talk about future plans and offer a maintained GTK2 up as reassurance for why we shouldn't do anything about the future, that confirms my worst fears, and I'm just going to post my rant to his thread that I've had saved in a tab for two days and been trying to hold back from posting out of respect.\"\n\nAnd honestly, in some ways this situation has taught me a lesson. I remember all the back to when I created my SunOS port and offered it up to OpenIndiana... I was thinking to myself that since they were having trouble with Rust and were stuck on an older version of Firefox close to our fork point, and that since the version they had was so far behind that Pale Moon was a better browser than the Firefox they were shipping, I could get them on board with Pale Moon. When I offered it up to them... they not only rejected it, they doubled down on porting newer Rust to OpenIndiana and started trying to keep up with Firefox versions aggressively, like they never had before. I always assumed I knew the reason, that there wasn't much more to it than I saw on the surface, and never thought about it too hard.\n\nWeirdly... this situation almost makes me understand another part of the likely reason why it triggered so much work to get modern Firefox working on their part, and what it feels like to be on the _other_ side of that. To feel like someone is poking right at your weakness and a pain point threatening to turn all your hard work into some kind of toy that's permanently stuck in the past unless you get really serious about modernizing everything, pronto. You don't wind up feeling grateful for what was offered... you feel trapped, almost _mad_ that you let yourself get into a situation _so bad_ that it feels like they can sense your desperation and use it to further an agenda they have that will not help your project long-term and will just let you kick the can down the road far enough to become irrelevant. I'd almost be tempted to consider this situation karma for how I might have made the OI maintainers feel when I offered it. As much as I like UXP and Pale Moon, I can see how the idea of being a captive audience for it with no better fallback handy would hit differently if you're already anxious about your OS lacking a modern browser.\n\nIn my mind, the whole GTK2 thing is a weakness or an obstacle to overcome \"when we get around to it,\" and which is hard to address without upsetting a big portion of the Linux userbase. It isn't a strength or something to celebrate, something I want us to be known for or have our identity tied to. Being offered a maintained GTK2 version in someone else's \"special environment\" because they think you need it feels like having someone speak more slowly to you because you can tell they think you're mentally not all there... if you know what I mean. It feels like we'd be... becoming something like the engine for a Konqueror revival inside one of those things like MiDesktop or TDE. Something with relevance in only a curated toy box for a handful of nostalgic power users, and which perhaps has its identity increasingly tied to that.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Other/future projects • Re: GTK2 revival",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-16T08:56:54.000Z"
}