{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiew7ypmn5ofuntelbutgp24odqnyeaaephg6wahbwc64hilbudnby",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmhkq6ffjd32"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33466&p=274500#p274500",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-22T17:49:00.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "From my perspective, there are several things that contribute to this. These are what I believe to be the biggest ones:\n\nPeople say our codebase is \"old and insecure\" because it's forked from an older version of Firefox. The truth is that UXP does regularly get security updates, both as backports from upstream Firefox as well as security issues we find on our own.\n\nGoing back to the topic of being an older Firefox fork, people think that we're using the same engine as Firefox so there is no reason to use our browser. While the \"same engine as Firefox\" statement was true at the time UXP was created, it is no longer true. At this point, we could be considered our own separate thing. Sure, there is some code that exists or did exist in both engines, but we drift apart more and more every single day.\n\nThere were past events that made people dislike the Pale Moon community and contributors. Examples being the MyPal and OpenBSD debacles. I won't go into detail here, but it definitely rubbed people the wrong way and unfortunately the stigma stuck.\n\nThe performance is a bit slower than say Firefox or Chrome due to the lack of multiprocess. On a personal level I agree with Moonchild's decision to exclude Mozilla's e10s multiprocess implementation, but that being said I could see how that might put people off from using the browser. I have to use Firefox/Chrome for some sites because they are slower in UXP (usually these sites are horribly written garbage that pull in tens of megabytes of JS code).\n\nThere is also the issue that UXP can't browse some sites due to some JS/CSS features not being implemented. I've been working heavily on improving this this year and other contributors have worked on this as well, but there are still sites that can't be used in Pale Moon at this time due to lack of JS features. People don't want to use a browser that can't browse the sites they want to visit.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "General Discussion • Re: Pale Moon's PR Problem",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-22T17:49:00.000Z"
}