|
|
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
|
|
|
<h2>Why am I still dealing with Pale Moon drama?<small class="alignright" style="font-weight: normal;">2023-05-24</small></h2>
|
|
|
<img src="../media/img/p000-palemoon.png" class="alignright" style="margin: 6px;">
|
|
|
|
|
|
- <p><em>This is not the content of the post with this title.</em></p>
|
|
|
+ <p><em>This is not the original content of the post with this title.</em></p>
|
|
|
<p>This is the wrong question. The correct question is: Why am I still bothering with this technology if the cost is so high? To be honest, I don't know. It isn't that I need it specifically cause I haven't hardly used any of my software in a year and a half. Do I still feel an obligation to the Pale Moon community, a community that has always had a sizeable portion who never wanted me there in the first place? Yeah, that is part of it. But I think it is just that it is exceedingly difficult for me to give up on one of the most important endevors I ever embarked on. All starting with a low frame windchime with an M on it later becoming the more widely reconized N with a meteor shower.</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Pale Moon and UXP were the most productive bit thus far (and most costly) of what started when I was a kid using Windows 3.1. However, Pale Moon or the Unified XUL Platform are NOT the end all and be all of the Netscape journey that survives the browser it was based on and transcends its own station from OS down through the web page with few points not applicable in-between. The tech or the concept behind the tech? Which is more important. I'd say both but both aren't always possible. So I would favor continuing the concept of the technology if I couldn't otherwise materally have said technology. This is what will drive the Mark III eXPerimental Platform. As for the Retired XUL Platform, I will get it in DIY-release shape soon-ish and see about writing more clear build instructions as a few personal builders have gotten a bit confused. Just means I need to do a better job but soon-ish.</p>
|
