Browser Support • Re: Why is Pale Moon so slow?

Off-topic:

Yeah, more importantly, he's also new to the forum. That means he hasn't seen how many people have asked about e10s over the years, how many weird hacks people have tried to reenable it and the smug justifications and feelings of satisfaction we've seen from that crowd before when they "crack the code" and get speed. He doesn't know that we keep answering the same questions and cautioning people about the same things over and over again... about e10s, NoScript, moving a Firefox profile straight into Pale Moon, various other "clever" things people do that seem to work at first but are not good ideas.

I really hope he doesn't hold it against us that I snapped, it wasn't an appropriate way for me to act as a senior dev. In general, I just need to learn to think more like an engineer and stop treating this codebase, this architecture like it's my baby or something just because I've invested a lot and I believe in it. I need to accept that people will do what they want to do, no matter how I feel about it, and keep building things in the way I think is right, without trying to defend that way constantly. Still want to caution people when I see something like this, almost instinctively, but I think ultimately I really do have to learn how to work with people who don't want the same things I do, who might want to work more independently and treat them amicably when they show up here and talk about what they're doing, without expecting them to share our goals or perspective. That's a hard lesson to learn, but I'm trying to do better.

I knew I'd promise to myself I wouldn't respond to this thread after you snapped, but I've got to make a "final response" to clear up issues.

I don't hold it against this community or the devs that you did in fact snapped, I was kind of stupid for mentioning e10s at all in my response, I just wanted to clear up a statement Moonchild stated about e10s in Dactyloidae (which I will remove e10s a future release, likely in 14.0 or a future release in 13.x). Again, I apologize for that, I can be a PITA sometimes and I just don't realize it.

Addressing the elephant in the room:

Off-topic: I suspect you have already come to the conclusion that this is not what most of the userbase desires, going by your and Basilisk-Dev's recent all-but-split. Bringing me to my next point...

because nobody else is working on performance.

I suspect this is an attempted jab at UXP's development seeing as you and Basilisk-Dev have recently, without zero forewarning or willingness to cooperate with upstream development, branched off into your own thing. It's quite a light jab, considering it's quickly disproven by checking the UXP repo's commit and issue history. athenian and Moonchild (and yes, you and Basilisk), have all been working toward improving performance. Passive-aggressive jabs such as this are quite immature when the reality is different. I suppose it's easier to just push cooperation to the side and splinter a development team.

I don't know how much I can reveal without Basilisk-Dev going mad at me, but I have got to clear this up to avoid future drama between us two and the rest of the community.

We branched off and made eUXP around a week or two ago because there were enough (web compatibility and performance) issues in upstream UXP that the upstream UXP devs did not want merged in, that we just branched off to fix said issues ourselves. All of the new web compatability fixes is just stuff Basilisk-Dev has had archived for a while, but upstream UXP maintainers did not want it merged in.

I'm moving changes from Dactyloidae into two sections (since I still am not finished with that): ones that I think upstream UXP would like merged in, and ones that I think they don't.

I don't know if Basilisk-Dev is still contributing to upstream after eUXP has been made, but I will still contribute to upstream UXP for issues that I think you all would want merged in.