Is Firefox still the go to opensource browser?

>>52331625
Its Pale Moon now

>>52331661
I thought it was icecat.

You can get it through the AUR.

yes

>>52331661
>addons have to be compatible with firefox 23
no thanks

File: 500px-Iceweasel_icon.svg.png (155KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 500x500px

No.

>>52331625
yes. rebrands that stay close to original firefox are OK too.
just stay away from pale moon and other outdated forks.

>>52332090
Pale Moon works good enough. They only support no recent web drafts so you need a secondary browser for all pages which don't work.

And it has less security problems than Firefox itself as Pale Moon is not using untested new Firefox code. So, it is actually more save than Firefox.

>They only support no recent web drafts so you need a secondary browser for all pages which don't work.
>need a secondary browser
>works good enough
Top Zimzam

>>52332902
It works indeed good enough. For simple sites, which are not needing HTML5, CSS3 or ES6 and ES7 features.

>>52332902
>Top Zimzam
So, if you browse just Google, some boards or general news sites and Soundcloud or Bandcamp and not shiny new age pages which require one of those mentioned drafts - which are not even recognized specifications at that time - then Pale Moon is working good enough. Hell, even QTWebkit Browsers like Otter or Qupzilla are good enough, are in the same situation like Pale Moon that they support no recent drafts.

And unti a draft is officially recognized as specification, a long time is passing. And no one should use drafts at all before they reach the level of a recognized specification.

Only foolish web designers with a heavy infestation of inferiority complexes are doing that.

>>52331625
Chromium performs better on my netbook than firefox does, so I made the switch completely now.

File: mild.jpg (41KB, 360x390px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 360x390px

>>52332460
>works good enough
>need a secondary browser
>old code = secure code