On 09/24/2017 08:48 AM, Miroslav Rovis wrote: > On 170924-08:36-0400, zap wrote: > ... > Zap, look at the work that I'd need to do if I went the Waterfox way: Hmm... yes I really don't know. Not that it matters anyways, waterfox doesn't need to be added to the repo to be used in devuan. I have seen proof of this myself. So yeah... >>> But only if more people from Devuan or Debian created a traction would I be >>> more willing to give it a real try (would be lots of compiling, as in my Not needed, librezilla is better idea. I hope it will be based off of firefox esr. > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ > | | | | | | | | >>> paragraph that survived so far, further down, just as for Palemoon, so lots >>> of >>> work)... >> Your call, if you want to trust waterfox and my testimony. Up to you. :) > It's not about trust, but expert testimony or content advanced user numbers > (of > which there are some in both Gentoo and Devuan/Debian) or more, of which there > is substantial amount for Pale Moon... Really good support on the forums e.g. > > And more expert testimony would mean much more than just words. Harder stuff, > such as how they behave shown with packet traces, e.g.
Yeah, it is kind of ignorant for me to say that I guess. my bad. > ... >>> Rick Moen in the later email, gave good explanation on the page you gave in >>> regard: >>> https://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml >>> Something like simply overstated protection of their logo, and, let me hope >>> that, having corresponded (a little) on the list with the main guy behind >>> Pale >>> Moon, Mark Straver (so far, I have had no reason to disbelieve of his >>> developer honesty), my impression is that (manual citation follows from that >>> page): >>>>>> The binaries and/or archives are completely UNALTERED. >>> is likely just a good protection against plain abuse. >> I suppose > ... >> That's fine, I look forward to librezilla. and yes waterfox isn't >> perfect either, but I find it more trustworthy than palemoon. We all >> make our own choices feel free to ignore my post if you wish. > C'mon! You would need to do something wrong, and bad, for me to ignore your > post(s), and you haven't done so. Different points of view, political or > techical, do not make for a reason to ignore. > > Regards! Yeah you make a good point, although I meant ignoring me on my thoughts on waterfox. But yeah that isn't constructive either. :/ _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
