1081405 - Chatzilla support of Pale Moon's new GUID

Status: UNCONFIRMED

(Other Applications :: ChatZilla, defect)

Description

[jason.faust]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20141005 PaleMoon/25.0.0
Build ID: 20141005163024

Steps to reproduce:

Updated Pale Moon to version 25.  Saw Chatzilla was missing from the menu.

Launched Chatzilla in Pale Moon 25 by using a empty irc: scheme.


Actual results:

Returned with the following message

The host application UID "{8de7fcbb-c55c-4fbe-bfc5-fc555c87dbc4}" is not recognised. Please report what application you are running ChatZilla in, and the UID given.


Expected results:

Chatzilla should of open normaly.  The client works fine, just needs the new GUID added I guess.

http://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml Has the new GUID verbatim.

Comment 1

[James Ross]

If we were to add their GUID to the compatibility code inside ChatZilla, we should also add it to the install manifest. Looks like there's nothing significant different about Pale Moon and Firefox, as far as ChatZilla is concerned, so it should be possible to support that, if we want to. It does seem like somewhat a niche though.

Comment 2

[Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec]]

(In reply to James Ross from comment #1)
> If we were to add their GUID to the compatibility code inside ChatZilla, we
> should also add it to the install manifest. Looks like there's nothing
> significant different about Pale Moon and Firefox, as far as ChatZilla is
> concerned, so it should be possible to support that, if we want to. It does
> seem like somewhat a niche though.

Does Thunderbird include the xulrunner-like APIs required by ChatZilla? Then maybe it would be enough to add a <TargetApplication> for [e-mail] in the install.rdf?

Otherwise, the Palemoon blurb http://www.palemoon.org/ says that PaleMoon is "a browser for Windows, Android and Linux (with other systems in development) based on Firefox and regularly updated". I am under the impression that it lags a little compared to bleeding-edge Firefox but that shouldn't be a problem for ChatZilla AFAIK.

BTW, speaking of niche products, I see that Songbird (discontinued in June 2013 according to Wikipedia) is still supported.

Comment 3

[Matt A. Tobin]

I was going to get to you guys about this. 

We currently have a "Psuedo-Static" version on our add-ons site that has been temporarily modified by us to work with Pale Moon. It is fully functional but such temporary versions need to be replaced by either a proper release by you guys or at last resort a fork by us.

Because of this I can confirm that ChatZilla currently is fully functional on a technical level with Pale Moon and as the Pale Moon Add-ons Site Administrator and Team Leader I would like to request support for the browser. I may even be able to submit a proper patch to the effort time permitting.

Comment 4

[Geoffrey De Belie (Smile4ever)]

This should be resolved. I would like to have it as well, just to have an error message less.

Or at least add an about:config switch to not check for the UID. ChatZilla works fine in Pale Moon, even in a tab.

Error message: "The host application UID "{8de7fcbb-c55c-4fbe-bfc5-fc555c87dbc4}" is not recognised. Please report what application you are running ChatZilla in, and the UID given."

Comment 5

[:Gijs (he/him)]

Supporting palemoon properly would mean we would always have to deal with non-e10s and Firefox 24 (now 2.5 years old, and that's just going to get worse). I also expect that adding its UUID to install.rdf would probably break AMO upload, which would be annoying.

I could be convinced to take a patch if it doesn't break AMO upload, but I don't think it's worth investing time in it myself, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being broken whenever someone next changes sockets or DNS or proxy code (all of which have happened since 24 already), or how Firefox implements menus, or...

Comment 6

[Geoffrey De Belie (Smile4ever)]

(In reply to :Gijs Kruitbosch from comment #5)
> Supporting palemoon properly would mean we would always have to deal with
> non-e10s and Firefox 24 (now 2.5 years old, and that's just going to get
> worse). I also expect that adding its UUID to install.rdf would probably
> break AMO upload, which would be annoying.
> 
> I could be convinced to take a patch if it doesn't break AMO upload, but I
> don't think it's worth investing time in it myself, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if it ends up being broken whenever someone next changes sockets
> or DNS or proxy code (all of which have happened since 24 already), or how
> Firefox implements menus, or...

While I can understand your concerns, you are wrong for the following reasons:

1) Pale Moon follows a different versioning scheme. Pale Moon 25 does not use Firefox 25 as a base, but rather Firefox ~40 (fixed in release 25.7.1 was https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-7174) with a classic GUI (non-australis)
2) Pale Moon will attempt to retain compatibility with popular addons as long as they don't depend on Firefox specific functionality (read: australis, e10s) (although e10s might be considered in the future for Pale Moon (now I look at Matt A. Tobin)
3) Adding a GUID is no big deal (if it breaks, it breaks but at least it works now. You can not predict what software will still run in 5 years).

Comment 7

[Robert Utasi [:hunboy]]

The latest PaleMoon useragent is: 
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:25.8) Gecko/20151126 Firefox/31.9 PaleMoon/25.8.1

It's deprecated Gecko 31

Comment 8

[:Gijs (he/him)]

(In reply to Geoffrey Db from comment #6)
> 1) Pale Moon follows a different versioning scheme. Pale Moon 25 does not
> use Firefox 25 as a base, but rather Firefox ~40 (fixed in release 25.7.1
> was https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-7174) with a
> classic GUI (non-australis)

This is just not true. Pale Moon might be backporting some of the security patches for e.g. Firefox 40, but its source code still misses updates made in the Firefox 38 timeframe, like e.g. bug 436344 and bug 1125372, the effects of which are visibly absent from https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/blob/master/netwerk/base/public/nsIProtocolProxyService.idl (old path, too) and https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/blob/master/dom/plugins/base/nsPluginHost.cpp#L681 .

In time, that kind of difference is going to start breaking things, even if it hasn't yet. In the last few years CZ has started being more aggressive in not bothering to support things older than the last supported Firefox ESR, which 24 hasn't been for almost 2 years now. Unless PaleMoon adopts a strategy that more closely follows current development of Firefox, our support for it will be as short-lived as that for Flock and Songbird was. For me as one of the maintainers, it doesn't seem worth investing in that.

Comment 9

[Matt A. Tobin]

Okay.. Let me set both of you straight on this.

Greetings, I am the the Add-ons Site Administrator and Leader of the Add-ons Team for the Pale Moon Project.

Pale Moon is an independently developed and divergent browser once based on Firefox.

Please see relevant information on the Pale Moon website regarding our divergent and independent path.
http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7818
http://www.palemoon.org/history.shtml
http://www.palemoon.org/roadmap.shtml

But keep in mind.. Pale Moon is not Firefox and never will be again.

Perhaps the ChatZilla Team should actually do some research before making an inaccurate and unacceptable judgement call. Especially seeing as after the deprecation of XUL we will literally be the only browser and product that will be able to run current ChatZilla code.

To: [e-mail] while I appreciate your effort in going out and trying to help by asking developers for direct compatibility and support. Please check your facts too as this entire bug is based on misconceptions and lack of proper understanding. If you are a forum member you may contact me directly there.

Comment 10

[jason.faust]

To: [e-mail] Don't get passive aggressive at me for an entry that I raised 14 months ago, over the literal request of the error message Chatzilla generated, and haven't commented on since the creation. Why don't you check your facts first before running your mouth like that.