Legacy v52 ESR, help please !

[bawldiggle]

In local thread ... Which of these is the correct download link? ... the suggestion is to use v52 ESR

In "Classic Theme Restorer" developer "Aris-12" Github Issue #299 Aris-12 advises to use v52esr as last release before Australis etc.
What concerns me is the proviso on the Issue #299 webapge ...

"without major code changes since Fx 52,"

... were there any minor code changes, like early preparations for Australis etc ??
My very active semantics radar ... suspicious blip ?

I am trying to avoid any preliminary Australis "preparations" by Moziila that might stuff up my Classic extensions etc.
Which version of v52.x.x ESR is the safest bet without getting caught up in early Australis
v52.0esr https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox ... s/52.0esr/ (6-Mar-2018)
v52.0.1esr https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox ... 52.0.1esr/ (17-Mar-2018)

The Firefox releases webpage is a challenge listed in binary order.

I am not a fan of Web extensions and at 73 ... death by Firefox is at the bottom of my list of health issues

Thank you

[James]

Not sure why you are looking at old builds of Firefox 52 ESR when the most current (and last) is 52.9.0 ESR. The legacy Firefox 52 ESR will be End Of Life or EOL on Sept 5th with no more security and stability updates after then. Firefox 62.0 and 60.2.0esr will be the current Releases then.

https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox ... 52.9.0esr/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/o ... ll/#legacy

[bawldiggle]

To many Classic Extensions are not compatible with Quantum Fox
Old ? I dont call March 2017 old ... a case of ... the ash tray is full ... buy a new car !

At 73 I am not going to get myself tied up in knots over "maybe's" and "what-ifs"
Life is full of disappointments, failures etc ... I wont die if Fox falls over, I'll just start over, or find another browser.

Did you look at "Classic Theme Restorer" developer "Aris-12" Github Issue #299 webpage, the table was/is my guide.

Thank you for your concern

[James]

The 52.0 ESR and 52.0.1 ESR you linked to were the first builds of 52 ESR (which is why I said they were old) and not the current build (52.9.0esr) with security and stability fixes since. There were 9 major updates with some having minor updates for security and or stability fixes. The 52.9.0 ESR (fifty-two.nine.zero) was released on June 26, 2018.
https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/52.9.0/releasenotes/

See image on https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/organizations/

https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

Normally there are eight major updates for a version on ESR channel however the current ESR was changed from 59.0 to 60.0 so there was a 52.9.0esr to have overlap. The second number is for major updates while last number increases by one if there is a minor update for security and or stability fixes for that version.

[bawldiggle]

Are Classic Extensions (not WebExtensions) compatible with 52.9.0esr ?

According to "Classic Theme Restorers" Issue #299 ESRs later than 52.0 might not be compatible with non-web-extensions, it is alleged CTR has problems after ESR 52.0

"Aris-12" table indicates ESR 52.9 was based on FFox 61, and for memory Fox 60 was a major change, when Classic Extensions did not work, and even before that with each release of Fox std there were plenty of complaints on the web about Classic Extensions part failing or not working at all.

I will download ESR 52 through to ESR 52.9 ... try ESR 52.9 and if no problems I will grovel at your feet as I eat humble pie

Regards ... the bald one

[James]

ESR is all about security and allowed stability fixes as no new features from later Releases are added. ESR is meant for Enterprise users in mind as those users may not want to be testing new major Releases every so often. The only time Mozilla has served ESR to regular users was the Firefox 52 ESR to Windows XP/Vista users since they cannot run Firefox 53.0 and later Releases.

Firefox 52 ESR was based on the Firefox 52.0 Release just as Firefox 60 ESR is based on the Firefox 60.0 Release. The security fixes being much of the same security fixes put in current Release at the time. It did not mean it was based on that Release in features or changes like with Firefox 57.0 (Quantum) and later has.

https://www.mozilla.org/security/known- ... refox-esr/

from https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/organizations/

Maintenance of each ESR, through point releases, is limited to high-risk/high-impact security vulnerabilities and in rare cases may also include off-schedule releases that address live security vulnerabilities. Back ports of any functional enhancements and/or stability fixes are not in scope.

[bawldiggle]

James

I run a small Structural/Civil Engineering consultancy. Seven of us, youngest is 68 and eldest is 77, me in the middle at 4 weeks off 73.
A bunch of old dogs resistant to new tricks ...

Thank you for your follow up
I think I might have to place a tentative order for that humble pie.

We are flat out at the moment with a govt. job so I will get back to you when the whinging, wheezing and coughing subsides.

Regards

[dfoulkes]

Are Classic Extensions (not WebExtensions) compatible with 52.9.0esr ?

According to "Classic Theme Restorers" Issue #299 ESRs later than 52.0 might not be compatible with non-web-extensions, it is alleged CTR has problems after ESR 52.0

"Aris-12" table indicates ESR 52.9 was based on FFox 61, and for memory Fox 60 was a major change, when Classic Extensions did not work, and even before that with each release of Fox std there were plenty of complaints on the web about Classic Extensions part failing or not working at all.

I will download ESR 52 through to ESR 52.9 ... try ESR 52.9 and if no problems I will grovel at your feet as I eat humble pie

Regards ... the bald one

I'll say this... I'm sticking with ESR 52.9 for now ... and I use about 40 extensions and I've only seen one of them (Stylish) have an issue... and I think it's because the author has tried to use the same code for both Firefox's (now/old) ... but I'm probably wrong there.

Anyway, I've had no issues with using 52.9 and my extensions are the same ones I've used for years.

BTW... if you want to try out the new Firefox you can pull down the portable version...it doesn't 'install' like a normal program..so it won't mess up stuff...
Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition | PortableApps.com - Portable software for USB, portable and cloud drives

[bawldiggle]

@ dfoulkes
Thank you for your contribution

Preferring portable programs I have downloaded (Windows only) portableApps.net v52.8.1 ESR (there is no portable v52.9 ESR) for my Windows PC to simplify identifying Palemoon compatible Fox extensions. A job I have left until the last minute. Not sure whether Classic extension are wiped on 5-Sept or "early" Oct-2018.
There are so many contradictory reports around. My current understanding is new non web-extensions will not be accepted by Mozilla after 5-Sept, and classic extns. will be wiped "early" Oct. I hope I am right.

I have had some peculiar assessments with v52.8.1 as being compatible with some web-extensions.
Looks like I will have to install 52.9 ESR ... buy a humble pie and apologize to James

Palemoon have removed the "incompatible extensions" webpage, it did have some re-directions to legacy versions that do play with Palemoon. I note a lot of legacy extensions/addons have resurfaced on Github ... but how to find them, without the AMO list ?.
My problem, not this Mint forum's.

the-bald-one

[the-edmeister]

Palemoon is made from a real old version of Firefox, where Basilisk is made from a much newer version of Firefox - but a version that is from prior to the Quantum version of Firefox. Both those web browsers are made by the same Moonchild Productions group or person. You might be better off with Basilisk as far as the best extension compatibility. I am using Basilisk myself for part of each day, and it feels like the soon to be E-O-L Firefox 52 ESR version (tomorrow is when E-O-L occurs).

The older XUL based extensions aren't called "non web-extensions" or "Classic extensions", they are known as Legacy extensions. Legacy extensions will be removed from the Mozilla Addons website in the not too distant future, but "someone" is downloading the Legacy extensions and will be hosting them "somewhere" so AMO removing the Legacy extensions shouldn't be a big deal.

This is the area of the PaleMoon support forum where Basilisk support is available. https://forum.palemoon.org/viewforum.php?f=61 The contributors there should be able to point you toward Basilisk compatible Legacy extensions.

[therube]

(The new) PM 28 is based off of FF 52.

Basilisk is & is intended to be a continual work-in-progress.
(IOW while one may use it & while it may work fine, it is not intended to be a Release product.
The same way as one may use FF Nightly, & while it may work fine, it is not intended to be a Release product.)

Removal of Legacy from AMO will be a big deal.
No telling how others may (or may not) present the data.
Might simply be a FTP site with a list of filenames.
Which might be fine - theoretically.
But at least, currently & FWIW, you can look on AMO & realize (or at least surmise), by reading the notes, that a particular version of a particular extension is a webextension vs a Legacy extension.
With a list of names, you might see, ublock_origin-1.16.20-an+fx.xpi & think, wow, that's what I wanted uBlock.
Only to find out that that is a webextension version.
AMO at least gives some context, & you can scroll down its list & say, ah, what I really need is, ublock_origin-1.13.8-an+fx+sm+tb.xpi.

With a list, you have a list, & that is all you know.

---

Forum: Incompatible extensions page?

Google cache - currently (so if you want it...), http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... en&ct=clnk.
(And yes, I know there are more recent Legacy versions of uBlock [that are not on AMO].)

--

PM generally puts the onus of extension issues - on the extensions.
And also expects extension authors to code specifically for PM, which you've got to think, for most, is a reach.

[LIMPET235]

+1 for the Basilisk browser.
It works fine here & uses Legacy Extensions.
For ref; > https://www.basilisk-browser.org/

[sepia]

Palemoon is made from a real old version of Firefox

Sorry but this is only partially true and doesn't apply at all for Palemoon 28 which has the same layout and scripting engine as Basilisk has.

You might be better off with Basilisk as far as the best extension compatibility. I am using Basilisk myself for part of each day, and it feels like the soon to be E-O-L Firefox 52 ESR version (tomorrow is when E-O-L occurs).

Keep please in mind that Basilisk is primarily a development platform so most users might be better off with Palemoon 28.0.1.
You could test with the portable edition to see how it performs for you and if your legacy extensions will work. Web extensions are not supported.
Be aware that v.28.0.1 is a new milestone release and it still may have some glitches, especially on 32-bit systems.

[Brummelchen]

Palemoon is based on firefox 55 and they got it that it was the wrong build so they did basiliyk which is based on v52 because they can addopt firefox changes. Nevertheless they are too stupid to invent on their own and basilisk is a crippled crap. They turned out any benefit of servo thus it is neither nor a competetive to firefox - or waterfox.

Additional it was already mentioned that legacy extension will be phased out from mozilla for firefox, gone for ever. Same lazy story every day but people moan a lot better than to get along with the new situation which is current since a year. Idd people had a year time and time is now up.

[DanRaisch]

OK, this topic is apparently no longer about any version of Firefox so I'm moving it to Third Party Builds where PaleMoon is more appropriately a topic for discussion.