Now that the dust has settled [Overblown story on the archive server] why aren't you using Pale moon

John Clark
John Clark

does not apply for the frothing haters

Attached: pale-moon-28.6.0.png (169 KB, 1030x775)

Other urls found in this thread:

addons.palemoon.org/addon/https-always/
addons.palemoon.org/search/?terms= Self Destroying Cookies
github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.11
addons.palemoon.org/addon/ublock0-updater/
noscript.net/getit
addons.palemoon.org/addon/sdc-moon-edition/
spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html
spyware.neocities.org/articles/discord.html

Ethan Baker
Ethan Baker

Because my favorite extensions don't work in it. I can't browse the web without Random Agent Spoofer, Ublock, NoScript, Self Destroying Cookies and HTTPS everywhere, it feels dirty and wrong.

Attached: when-the-MRE-is-not-nice.png (153 KB, 384x390)

Connor Howard
Connor Howard

HTTPS Always
addons.palemoon.org/addon/https-always/

Self-Destructing Cookies for Pale Moon
addons.palemoon.org/search/?terms= Self Destroying Cookies

uBlock Origin Legacy works with pale moon, you just need to install from it's github page
github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/firefox-legacy-1.16.4.11
and use the "uBlock Origin Updater" for the updates
addons.palemoon.org/addon/ublock0-updater/

NoScript Classic works with Palemoon, Seamonkey, Waterfox
noscript.net/getit

Chase White
Chase White

Self-Destructing Cookies for Pale Moon
Technically correct link:
addons.palemoon.org/addon/sdc-moon-edition/

Grayson Adams
Grayson Adams

28.6.0
AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAH

Posted from Firefox 70.0a1

Ayden Clark
Ayden Clark

I did for a while, then I found waterfox and now I use that because it's more developed and the developer doesn't think he gets to choose what addons I'm allowed to install

Wyatt Fisher
Wyatt Fisher

it's settled because some random fuck said so
Retard.
why
It's a shitty outdated single-threaded bog of a browser "maintained" by furry spergs which doesn't support the firefox addons store. You'd be an imbecile to use it over firefox + privacy settings.

Alexander Garcia
Alexander Garcia

Congratulations
Pale Moon doesn't follow Firefox's version numbering system because it's not a Firefox fork anymore [since 2013]

Jeremiah Bell
Jeremiah Bell

Something something mouth-frothing haters

Attached: PalemoonMoonchild.jpg (1.46 MB, 1718x4862)

Daniel Price
Daniel Price

Fair enough
although you can still install Noscript and AdNauseam

Chase Sanchez
Chase Sanchez

I prefer browsers that aren't malware

Attached: PalememeForcesAds.png (334 KB, 1356x1236)

Xavier Jackson
Xavier Jackson

Moron. Don't give me hearsay and novels, show me formal verification of the PM codebase. Or will you back off into your corner like every time you get called out?

Adam Morris
Adam Morris

Attached: u57u.jpg (23 KB, 422x400)

Jayden Scott
Jayden Scott

Confirmed checkmated again and again, everytime.

Adrian Nelson
Adrian Nelson

Attached: 98898.jpg (14 KB, 225x300)

Daniel James
Daniel James

You (the designated Jow Forums pale moon shill) are breaking several global rules by shilling, instigating arguments, and bumping yourself via low-quality shitposts. Good riddance.

S word goes in all fields lads

Cooper Rodriguez
Cooper Rodriguez

Thanks! I'll check them out.

Blake King
Blake King

implying there exists a formally verified browser

Attached: 1312393471250.jpg (44 KB, 476x349)

Thomas Miller
Thomas Miller

Not an argument. When it's said Pale Moon is more secure, proof must be provided. Since it's a soup of patches and the rando devs can't be trusted, a machine must verify this.

William Ward
William Ward

Point me to a specification of a secure browser. Until then, you can only have evidence that browser X is more secure than browser Y.

Jason Morgan
Jason Morgan

Sure, since PM is a spinoff of firefox, we assume he current to-the-hour codebase of firefox to be the golden standard to live up to. Now it's up to pale meme devs to formally analyse their deviations and prove any faults/improvements (hasn't happened).

Blake Brown
Blake Brown

There's no formal specification of firefox. Any analysis of differences would not amount be able to prove anything about security. It would just be evidence. Try again.

Lucas Morgan
Lucas Morgan

Sure, since PM is a spinoff of firefox

Wrong! It's not a spinoff, fork, nor has anything to do with Firefox Quantum.

Kindly fuck off, now!

Attached: 682395898.jpg (17 KB, 564x415)

Henry Bailey
Henry Bailey

Remember when palemoon autists attacked volunteers trying to port to OpenBSD?

Remember when moonfaggot attacked slackware and its dev/users?

Remember when moonfaggot decided what add-ons users COULDN'T use with the browser?

Remember when lncompetent pale moon devs served malware to their users for a couple years?

The internet remembers, matt.

Xavier Stewart
Xavier Stewart

Says who, you? I want to see proof that PM is at least as secure as firefox and that the patches have been ported correctly. Nobody presents anything. Nobody even fucking tries.

Lucas Sanders
Lucas Sanders

I want to see proof
Then provide a _formal_ specification of a secure browser. Until then, any analysis, no matter what kind, will only amount to evidence.

Henry Phillips
Henry Phillips

will only amount to evidence.
of which you have none, matt.

Caleb Cox
Caleb Cox

Actually, there is some evidence that palemoon is more secure than sjwfox, namely the relative lack of CVEs.
Now stop backtracking and provide a specification of secure browser so i can formally prove that palemoon satisfies it more than firefox.

Landon Gonzalez
Landon Gonzalez

_formal_ specification of a secure browser
Okay, current mainline firefox code. Now I want to see that pale moon is either invariant to firefox or if it is variant, in what way. You can start by checking PM for all firefox CVEs ever, that's O(N) complexity where N is the # of CVEs. Don't reply until you at least do that you wolfkin sperg.

Nicholas Clark
Nicholas Clark

lack of CVEs
Absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense. Next.

Joseph Wood
Joseph Wood

I use Palmoon because it still works with legacy addons like mousegestures suite.

Carter Richardson
Carter Richardson

current mainline firefox code
Is not a _formal_ specification in any sense, since C++, as used by sjwfox, as well as Rust, has no model of its semantics. Hence you can't take it as a specification or even extract it from the code.
You're not asking for evidence of security, you're asking for evidence of palemoon being _more secure_ than sjwfox, to which your buzzwords don't apply.

Jonathan Scott
Jonathan Scott

Go check it for yourself.

spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html

Zachary Hughes
Zachary Hughes

Damage Control: The Thread.

Jayden Howard
Jayden Howard

I wish Pale Moon all the best. Past events were sucky

Elijah Bennett
Elijah Bennett

Its slow and can only use abandoned addons

Camden Martinez
Camden Martinez

Says who, you?
has no model of its semantics.
These aren't arguments, you're just hand waving in retreat. I specifically asked you to prove variance/invariance as a minimal first step. You didn't.
What this means that is you have not yet proved (probably will never) that the firefox security patches have been or are applied correctly in pale moon, above anything else. Until you do, I and everyone else has every reason to doubt the competence of the wolfkin sperg team.

Carter King
Carter King

Attached: io98oo.jpg (47 KB, 940x300)

Jaxon Cooper
Jaxon Cooper

Not an argument. Why do wolfkin spergs checkmate themselves?

Juan Hernandez
Juan Hernandez

just because I can't be arsed. I don't think it's bad, it's just that iridium and firefox+user.js work just fine for me.

Mason Morgan
Mason Morgan

i only use ublock but it was the first thing i did when i installed the browser and i don't know why you think that it doesn't work

the malware spoofed the infection date and made it seem like it was compromised for much longer than it actually was. semantic bullshit like that is normally not a point of consideration for me but look at the amount of shilling going on to try and get people to stop using pale moon based on that very lie created by the hacker for this very purpose. its evolved from jew bullshit to straight up gypsy bullshit

Attached: what-nigga.gif (2.22 MB, 198x195)

Kayden Watson
Kayden Watson

implying
I'm a chromium shill. I wouldn't touch any derivative of sjwfox.
I just find it hilarious that these retards think it's possible to prove anything about such huge codebase with current tools.
Says who, you?
Says any undergrad course on formal verification, my dear neet.
I specifically asked you to prove variance/invariance as a minimal first step
You can't prove invariance without model. C++ has no model of its complete semantics (or even the subset used in sjwfox), so you can't just magically conjure it. If sjwfox was written in specific subset of C, you'd have an argument. It is not, you have no argument.
firefox security patches have been or are applied correctly in pale moon
Specify what that means and i can prove/disprove it. But i'm pretty sure you'll need a model of fairly large subset of C++ semantics to do so, so good luck to you.
I and everyone else has every reason to doubt the competence of the wolfkin sperg team
Reason? No.
But you're free to doubt them, just as i doubt competence of anyone touching sjwfox or its derivatives.

Attached: 4ea0da4f1cff8d46129632e2dee2729f74fcf7fda97a19becc3c25b12e1d0c39.jpg (12 KB, 255x170)

Caleb Powell
Caleb Powell

what do you mean by secure? you need a metric to measure that on otherwise you're just loudly complaining that something doesn't fit an abitrary metric that you have not defined

and it's not like pale moon is even designed to be 'secure' its primary goal is being customizable. i'm not moving the goalposts, i didn't install it because it was secure, i installed it because it gives me the browsing experience i want and isn't explicitly developed to skim user information

Kayden Bailey
Kayden Bailey

I don't argue with toddlers

Jose Sullivan
Jose Sullivan

This stallman-approved eye cancer nonsense blog uses a definition of malware that either implicates ALL software. Like it calls discord, an app built on Electron(which is Chromium,) spyware. Why? Because it has a cache. Because it's a web browser. So all web browsers are spyware by their standards, too.

Never link this retarded site again.

James Howard
James Howard

Imagine being so retarded you think version numbers mean anything.

Parker Wood
Parker Wood

because Brave is better

Colton Foster
Colton Foster

prove invariance without model.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Okay let's do take an undergrad material on the topic from Introduction to Algorithms. I want you to sit down, and for every single function in the entire codebase of palemoon and firefox, define an invariant as per the first 50 pages of said book - what is the function supposed to do, prove it does it as correctly as its firefox counterpart, then the same post-patch. Do this and I will gladly audit your work.
Reason? No.
Where is the proof that pale meme is a worthy alternative then? Idiot.
Stop throwing buzzwords you don't understand. I've already given you 2 (three) courses of action and you've gone through neither.
you need a metric
Example already given - iterate through all known firefox CVEs and check them in pale moon. It's a good start.

Charles Wright
Charles Wright

t. numlet

Aiden Lee
Aiden Lee

discord is probably the single most aggressively anti-consumer and user-hostile piece of software in common circulation. it is amazing to me that people use it and consider it good software when its entire user interface and extended functionality is pretty much Reddit's version of Xfire. it's not just shit, it's very obviously designed to be a monolithic service provider that gives you no control over your software experience and they even have the audacity to charge money for basic functionality

there is no reason to use discord over an irc server with a mumble link in the MOTD. if your dumbass discord community has invested too much money in chatroom DLC and microtransactions to be willing to switch to a better and customizable platform then it speaks for itself

Henry Cooper
Henry Cooper

Which IRC has a handy desktop client with colorful text and avatars, easy to set up chatbots, audiovisual content sharing, etc...

Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis

irc doesn't have those things but jabber does, except avatars, but if you are willing to jump through all of those user-hostile features and get blatant advertisements thrown in your face for nothing but avatars then you need to take a step back and look at your priorities

Brody Long
Brody Long

undergrad material on the topic
Introduction to Algorithms
I'd rather you sit down with Baier, Katoen and read what a formal specification, proof, model means.
Your CLRS with font for moles doesn't impress even the larpers these days. Step up your game.
prove it does it as correctly as its firefox counterpart
There is no specification for sjwfox counterparts. So your claim that sjwfox does it correctly, in any capacity, is void.
You do the sjwfox part, then i'll gladly "prove" your laughably superfluous definition of "invariance".
proof that pale meme is a worthy alternative
Prove that running sjwfox won't make your wife cuck you with an african.
Stop throwing buzzwords you don't understand
You're the one who doesn't understand a basic term such as proof, specification, or model and keeps incorrectly throwing around "prove X" and other faeces.
I've already given you 2 (three) courses of action
I've given you one ingredient for all the tasks - specify a secure browser, or even just sjwfox. Instead, you're just running around trying to coerce me into providing evidence and unsound analyses, instead of providing you a proof which is what i want to do.

Attached: f93ef2a.jpg (66 KB, 800x450)

Nathaniel Martinez
Nathaniel Martinez

font for moles
Not an argument. You fail to deliver.
in counterparts
Of course, and firefox is not shilled as some magical bloat-free botnet-free browser, which pale meme is. Ridiculous claims, I know.
african
Not an argument. You fail to deliver.
NO YOU
Not an argument. You fail to deliver.
y-youre pushing me over to do productive work
You should sit down and do productive work instead of breaking global rules every day all day, I've already given you precise algorithms and datasets to do so. You fail to deliver.

1/10 "You almost tried". Pale meme is a dumpster fire, shill harder (or not).

Isaiah Murphy
Isaiah Murphy

Not an argument. You fail to deliver.
As do you. Here's an argument: CLRS doesn't concern itself with verification of systems. So try again, preferably after reading Baier, Katoen.
firefox is not shilled as some magical bloat-free botnet-free browser
Dodging again. Nice try. Also sjwfox is shilled, just as chromium and pretty much every browser some ape on Jow Forums uses is.
All shillposts are guilty of the same baseless claims. As are you, trying to deflect your lack of knowledge of formal verification.
Not an argument
It's a metaphore of what you're asking. What you're asking simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever, since you fail to deliver the specification which sjwfox and palemoon are supposed to be checked against.
precise algorithms and datasets to do so
More and more buzzwords, my uneducated friend. You have absolutely no clue what a proof is, and keep trying to recover from that. There's no hiding it, i'm affraid. Take it as an opportunity to learn.

Attached: what-am-I-reading.gif (1.14 MB, 446x469)

Jose Allen
Jose Allen

doesn't
Can you or can you not prove that pale meme's security patches work on any level? Don't answer, rhetorical question.
is shilled
Literally nobody says it's bloat-free and botnet-free, not even the devs. Especially backed up with the fact that firefox has no safespace "forum" for nonsensical nonfactual blog posts. Simple as.
sense
Ad hominem. Not an argument.
deliver
I already told you very explicitly what to do.
what a proof is
Ad hominem. Not an argument. Can you or can you not follow the very simple algorithm from a simple undergrad book?
Branch:
Yes -> do it.
No -> then you, by extension, fail to apply/understand higher level material and have no arguments or proofs on this topic.

It's sort of an easy life to destroy spergs online.

Oliver Rivera
Oliver Rivera

It's sort of an easy life to destroy spergs online.

Attached: 5703688.jpg (12 KB, 300x300)

Jacob Thomas
Jacob Thomas

im not using palemoon because i like seamonkey better.
ill probably switch once they finally kill it off

Cameron Morris
Cameron Morris

I noticed
*leans*
you didn't respond
*extends arms*
to anything else
*dabs*

Liam Turner
Liam Turner

Can you or can you not prove that pale meme's security patches work on any level?
In theory, yes. In practice? Effectively impossible, given how much work the spec *and* modeling semantics of the shitlang would be.
Literally nobody says
Demonstrably false. It's been shilled as both "bloat-free chrome" and "botnet-free chrome".
Not to mention the actually measurable claims (false, as with everything sjwfox) about performance.
my post is retarded, therefore it's ad hominem to point it out
No™
I already told you very explicitly what to do.
You wanted _proof_, not an _evidence_. Your retarded way to "specify" a codebase doesn't amount to proof, can you please actually fucking open that book i pointed you to (try libgen if you don't want your neetbux to go to waste, since you very likely won't get anything in that book) and only then come back and rephrase your demands? Thanks. At this point it's like arguing with a child.
i don't know anything about formal verification, therefore it's ad hominem to point it out
Again, it's getting boring witnessing your breakdown. Do you need a safe space?
Educate yourself on the matter of formal verification, then come back and restate your claims in an intelligent way.
Can you or can you not follow the very simple algorithm from a simple undergrad book?
I can. My ability to doso however has nothing to do with formal verification.
It's sort of an easy life to destroy spergs online.
Yeah, self harm is fashionable among you zoomers.

Attached: 1554782410321.gif (1.91 MB, 267x260)

Anthony Jenkins
Anthony Jenkins

actually arguing semantics between proof and evidence.

Attached: clinton-is-is.jpg (48 KB, 1200x630)

Isaiah Wright
Isaiah Wright

In theory, yes. In practice? Effectively impossible
Thanks, all I wanted to hear.
false.
OK bring up some warosu and let's see pale meme threads and firefox shill threads.
arguing with a child.
Not an argument. I already explicitly stated what you should do. You fail to deliver.
breakdown
Not an argument. You fail to deliver.
nothing to do
Can you or can you not prove that pale meme's security patches work on any level? Don't answer, rhetorical question.
zoomers.
Not an argument.

I'm sure a praiseworthy programmer as mr wolfkin who spends 50 hours a day on safespace blogposts can muster up something, anything, to prove pale meme security patches actually work. If not follow a 3-step algorithm.

Asher Carter
Asher Carter

taking any claim about safety/security serious without proof
No amount of evidence saves you from fucking up, really, really bad. See OpenSSL audits, lincuck kernel audits, pretty much any audit. Worthless placebo.
Not an argument. You fail to deliver.

Attached: yukari-smile.png (445 KB, 746x676)

Dominic Ward
Dominic Ward

audits
worthless plecebo

don't proofread before considering something complete, because a semicolon might be missed anyway.

holy fuck you're a fucking idiot.
jesus fucking christ almighty.

Hudson Hall
Hudson Hall

pretty much any audit. Worthless placebo.

Reminder that this is directly from the people responsible for palememe.

Connor Campbell
Connor Campbell

*punctures your audited heart*
Nothing personnel, kiddo.
Directly responsible for your lifes whenever you take a train in France, rather.
But worry not, i know what a proof is unlike these retards.

Aiden Gutierrez
Aiden Gutierrez

I'm trying out palemoon right now. I like how you can make it look like netscape 4. However the performance doesn't seem to be as good as chromium.

Tyler Lopez
Tyler Lopez

any audit. Worthless placebo.
the absolute state of palemoon users

Tyler Miller
Tyler Miller

Directly responsible for your lifes whenever you take a train in France
so you're an african migrant that wants my shit and doesn't care about killing me to get it?

Easton Young
Easton Young

Worthless placebo.
NEW: pale moon dev announces he cannot provide proof of safety for his browser, calls audits worthless placebo more news at 9.

Somebody screencap this fucking loser from this thread and let's FPBP shutdown pale moon threads.

Jason James
Jason James

I kek at palemoon turds so hard, they show their incompetence once but instead of admitting their fuck up they go breaking bad and hit incompetence & autism levels that should not be possible. Holy shit, you must be 14 years old in your development, too bad you're locked down in an adult body

Easton Jenkins
Easton Jenkins

make sure to get that smug anime smile to really capture the kind of morons working this project.

Luke Walker
Luke Walker

Swiss overlord making sure that the software responsible for not making two (or more) trains wrestle works as intended.
cannot provide proof of safety for browser
I can prove/disprove safety of any browser, if you provide a specification of a safe browser.
Show an instance of system that had not a vulnerability after being audited. Go on, i'll wait.
Good thing about placebo is, it works on roughly 1/3 people, so us sane people who require proof instead of handwaving or evidence when it comes to safety or security, we're still in majority.

Attached: ac0.png (721 KB, 744x768)

Hunter Davis
Hunter Davis

in my experience, its the opposite. chrom/firefox have feature bloat for the sake of shitty sites i dont visit, or else neuter with ublock so completely that it makes no difference.

Tyler Gomez
Tyler Gomez

I can prove/disprove safety of any browser
Fantastic, for the 10th time now, go over every firefox CVE and test it on pale meme. You had hmmm 4 hours to do it.

OK let's dab on you real quick, you implied evidence is a subset or a precedent to fact. You stated audits are worthless. Proving or otherwise finding evidence for the safety of a browser is effectively auditing. Therefore, you believe proving the safety of a browser is worthless (in addition to being theoretically possible but practically impossible for reasons unknown). You finally bit your tail.

Bentley Sanchez
Bentley Sanchez

system that had not a vulnerability after being audited
that's not the point of audits lmao, what a weak bait

you're trying to manipulate terms and redefine them like a whiny kid while the whole thread says you are fucking retard but nah, you think you belong to "us sane people", that level of cope and denial is just pathetic. You just seem to be retarded on the genetic level, e.g having hard times with Down syndrome. A good resemblance of a palemoon user, keep up your good work

Wyatt Hughes
Wyatt Hughes

Fantastic, for the 10th time now, that won't prove safety of a browser. Give me the spec, you sperg. That's the only way you can prove a system is safe. No spec? No proof.
implied evidence is a subset or a precedent to fact
No™
I implied it's irrelevant to proof - ie. fact.
You stated audits are worthless
Factually correct.
otherwise finding evidence for the safety of a browser is effectively auditing
Yes. Hence worthless.
Proving
No. You can prove safety without audit.
that's not the point of audits lmao
Indeed. Safety or security isn't the point of audits, so they're irrelevant to this discussion. Especially irrelevant to proving safety.
manipulate terms and redefine them
That's what you retards are trying to do.
Proof has a very specific meaning wrt. safety. As does specification and model.
Apes itt were up to now trying to redefine two of those in order to show browser X as inferior to browser Y (both being inferior to browser Z, but that's beside the issue).

Attached: disdain-for-populares.jpg (62 KB, 548x554)

Adrian Powell
Adrian Powell

Safety or security isn't the point of audits
safety and security != system without a single vulnerability, like you wrote above

just like I said, keep up your good work, Downie

Aaron Brooks
Aaron Brooks

you're the reason firefox is at version fucking SEVENTY

David Young
David Young

it's a pretty fair argument though
blocking ads doesn't help websites, but it doesn't hurt them, either
generating fake clicks can devalue their ads, which just plain hurts the website, and not just from your own usage of it
you can disable the blacklist if you want, as well

Xavier Carter
Xavier Carter

The only system that can be called safe, is a system that correctly implements its spec (assuming the spec staisfiably captures "safe"). What the fuck are you on?
Sjwfox? Not safe, nor secure.
Palemoon? Not safe, nor secure.
Any browser, currently? Not safe, nor secure.
Troglodytes like you are the reason everything breaks these days and you can't go a day of using your computer without experiencing some bug.
I sincerely wish, from the bottom of my heart, that one day developers are legally liable for the damages caused by their software.
As it is now, shitters like you can make claims about safety and security without anyone batting an eye.
Flash news: you're wrong, and incompetent

Attached: 1528933850281.gif (1.89 MB, 200x200)

Nathan Ramirez
Nathan Ramirez

that won't prove the safety of a browser
Factually correct.
Says who, you? What do you know?
without audit
Fantastic, go do it to pale meme and prove us all wrong.
its spec
The spec is right there - firefox. Does pale meme act absolutely 100% like firefox under stress (CVEs and other) or does it fail. If it fails, how and why? You are unable to do this one simple task for which undergrad level books have been written.
Sjwfox? Not safe, nor secure.
Proof?

Palemoon? Not safe, nor secure.
NEW: Pale Moon dev snaps, confirms intuitions.

Daniel Diaz
Daniel Diaz

good job Downie, the more posts you make the more stupid you look. This post is just brilliant, but I'm sure you can always beat all records with new ones.

Chase Jackson
Chase Jackson

The spec is right there - firefox.
why firefox, of all things? why do you imply that firefox for some reason is perfectly secure?

Grayson Davis
Grayson Davis

Says who
The definition of proof.
go do it to pale meme
Not without you providing a spec of safe browser, for the 11th time now (assuming you counted correctly, which i'm not too confident about).
I'd have enough work for couple years modeling palemoon. I don't want to risk doing all this work and then you saying "hurr me no understand specification". So you do the spec, i do the model and proof.
The spec is right there - firefox
And again, C++ as used by sjwfox doesn't have model of semantics, so i can't extract formal specification from it, no matter how accurately you point in its general direction.
If you want me to extract the spec from sjwfox, you need to provide a model of C++ semantics (and now Rust too), so i can do just that.
You are unable to do this one simple task for which undergrad level books have been written.
I am able to, but that doesn't make a proof. All you're doing is finding evidence that palemoon takes sjwfox as spec (certainly false, as demonstrated by some forum post user linked here) and implements it.
A proof is something different, and i won't repeat it again. Educate yourself.
Proof?
I have two: proof of safety does not exist. Done.
CVEs exist. Done.
Pale Moon dev snaps
implying

confirms intuitions
I never claimed any browser is safe or secure. You did with sjwfox, better prove it.
i can't come up with anything, the autist actually plugged all holes and made it clear to me what safety is

Attached: 1544075031782.jpg (7 KB, 191x126)

Jeremiah Edwards
Jeremiah Edwards

specification
For the 11th time now, prove that pale moon is indeed safer than firefox where firefox is the baseline of safety.
modeling
Go and do it.
model of semantics
I already told you how to get around this made-up issue.
something different
Nope, in your dull mind, you think I want you to prove pale moon is some asbsolute form of safety. I want you to prove it's safer or as safe as firefox.
proof of safety does not exist.
Yikes, you're just bad at formal logic.

You have enough work to do, go and do it. Stop talking nonsense.

Dominic Phillips
Dominic Phillips

You didn't even read the discord blog entry right?
spyware.neocities.org/articles/discord.html
Maybe a 2 min youtube video is suits you better, because your attention span is that of a toddler.
Or you can do the work yourself and wireshark everything, but let me guess, it's too much work for you.

At least for me you've failed to make a point therefore aren't worth any more effort.
Have a good one!

Jace Nguyen
Jace Nguyen

firefox is the baseline of safety
What does that mean specifically? This is no formal specification. You failed yet again.
I'm doing you a favour here by letting you pick an obviously unsafe browser as your definition of safety. If i was not such a good guy, i'd have you come up with the spec from scratch.
Go and do it.
Pointless excercise without spec.
I already told you how to get around this made-up issue.
No you didn't. You can't handwave language semantics in a proof.
asbsolute form of safety
Yes. I'm also allowing you to take sjwfox as this absolute form of safety.
I want you to prove it's safer or as safe as firefox.
Then we need a spec independent of both browser, model both browser and see which satisfies the spec more.
Yikes, you're just bad at formal logic.
No. You're just bad at reading definition.
A safe system requires a proof of safety.
No such proof exists for sjwfox, it isn't safe. Simple as that, you mong.

Attached: jojo-kill-yourself.jpg (68 KB, 720x811)

Juan Scott
Juan Scott

i can't come up with anything, the autist actually plugged all holes and made it clear to me what safety is
sure thing buddy, just make sure to always have the last response. No matter how retarded your posts are, you leave the last post - you win, I've got you

Gavin Hall
Gavin Hall

You don't need a spec, you can trivially prove your implementation of insertion sort is correct without some imaginary specs. You just don't know how since you've never read the first 50 pages of introduction to algorithms. You've also never played around with coq or tla+. Oh and you're yet to prove the subset of C++ firefox uses is somehow undefined in terms of safety.
You're not only stalling, you're backtracking and generally making excuses for yourself. You've failed completely.

Carter Evans
Carter Evans

0 substance, why am i surprised
You got schooled on formal verification, showing a bit of gratitude would be appropriate.
you can trivially prove your implementation of insertion sort is correct without some imaginary specs
No you can't trivially prove it, you still need to model language semantics which no one who has ever done it describes as trivial. And no you can't do it without spec - axiomatic description of an algorithm is formal specification.
You've also never played around with coq or tla+.
I did a lot of Coq in school, but we use Isabelle in work, in addition to model checkers.
Oh and you're yet to prove the subset of C++ firefox uses is somehow undefined in terms of safety.
I didn't claim it was undefined, just that there was no model of it. Though it certainly is underdefined for the purposes of verification, as demonstrated by there being no CompCert alternative for C++.
You're not only stalling
It's stalling on you not providing spec of a safe browser.
you're backtracking
In which way? My claims still hold. Yours do not.
generally making excuses for yourself
I stated what i needed from you in order to provide you proof. You failed to deliver, that's no excuse, it's simple fact.

Attached: oppressivelaughter.jpg (19 KB, 491x488)

Jonathan Wood
Jonathan Wood

need to model language semantics
Says who, you? Or do you think mathematics is incorrect as a whole?
not providing
failed to deliver
Love how you began using my phrases. You have your goals and your means, you even stated yourself you can do it theoretically (later, practically).
You're out of ideas and out of phrases, just waiting to hopefully get the last word, a chance to say even more false statements.

Nathan Hill
Nathan Hill

Says who, you?
Definition of safe system. You can't claim your system is implemented correctly unless you model language semantics.
Love how you began using my phrases
That's the point. To show you how repetitive you are.
You're out of ideas and out of phrases, just waiting to hopefully get the last word, a chance to say even more false statements
The only false statement itt are provided by you and your ilk, clueless about formal verification.

Gavin Stewart
Gavin Stewart

unless
How, if every piece of code has its behaviour analyzed. Do you believe there are parts of firefox with undefined behaviour? Are they present in pale moon?
Go on, chop chop. This is what I want, analyze every line of code.

Sebastian Fisher
Sebastian Fisher

if every piece of code has its behaviour analyzed
How do you do that without model of the language semantics?
Do you believe there are parts of firefox with undefined behaviour? Are they present in pale moon?
Absence of UB does not a safe system make.

Charles Evans
Charles Evans

How
Read the first 50 pages of introduction to algorithms. The only semantics you'll ever need are the ISO c++ standard for the subset of features firefox utilises.

Colton Watson
Colton Watson

The only semantics you'll ever need are the ISO c++ standard for the subset of features firefox utilises.
How do you know your compiler implements them correctly?

Andrew Brown
Andrew Brown

I assume it, not my job. Someone else can sit and do it, and when it's proven safe as well, it will automatically translate to my analysis.

Jackson Thompson
Jackson Thompson

Cool. Until then, you have no proof of your system being safe.

Ayden Sullivan
Ayden Sullivan

????
Im to prove some abstract made-up code is correct. Compilation is a secondary afterthought. Im not doing binary reverse engineering.

Hudson Carter
Hudson Carter

Im to prove some abstract made-up code is correct.
That would fail to prove your implementation satisfies the properties you think it does.
Im not doing binary reverse engineering
You don't need to. See VST, seL4, SPARK, and numerous other examples of full functional verification.

Joseph Bailey
Joseph Bailey

no seamonkey

Attached: download.jpg (7 KB, 151x151)

Gabriel Brooks
Gabriel Brooks

Why would it? If it fits the standard and the code does what its supposed to, its all fine.

William Thompson
William Thompson

code does what its supposed to
You can't know this unless you're either using a verified compiler.

Justin Flores
Justin Flores

You can't call Palemoon being a hard fork damage control. The fact that it is a hard fork of a full blown web browser is really goddamn impressive.

Jace Brooks
Jace Brooks

Why do I care about my compiler again when Im analyzing high level code?

Logan Cox
Logan Cox

Seamonkey is switching to furryfucks' webextentions bullshit they're pushing with Google's dirty money. Dropped (and I used it for years)

Kayden Hill
Kayden Hill

To prove your system actually is safe?

Ryder Kelly
Ryder Kelly

Very few people actually shill Palemoon. Most posts about Palemoon on Jow Forums are shills shitting on it. If you want to complain about Browser shills, go after all the fucking Brave shill threads where people are shilling literal spyware and calling it private.

Gabriel Garcia
Gabriel Garcia

Bah compilers are give or take given correct abstract code. Id be happy to see a formally verified optimising compiler though.

Christian Perez
Christian Perez

Bah approximately ok
Not a proof unfortunately. You're now at a stage where you have a system that behaves correctly in a lala land.
Id be happy to see a formally verified optimising compiler though.
VST has one, CompCert has some optimizations too. There's none for C++ (well, there's one for C+), much less modern-ish C++ used in every current browser.
Your options: write one, transpile C++ to C which can be compiled by CompCert or VST. Both require you to model language semantics.

Gavin Jenkins
Gavin Jenkins

The autism displayed in this thread is really amazing

Austin Gonzalez
Austin Gonzalez

in a lala land
Not perfect but definitely most of the work done.
transpile
If you remove bad features from the language you can effectively remove semantically undefined behaviour such as multiple inheritance, virtual inheritance and other trash. Important projects such as vehicles and weapons systems already employ this technique, which is why I asked you to prove the set of features specifically in firefox right now does not fit the bill.

Nathan Myers
Nathan Myers

muh autism

Attached: 1562647195662-2.png (1.13 MB, 3588x3596)

John Roberts
John Roberts

Don't tell the mods but for the last 3 hours it's been me samefagging after that anti-palemoon user rebuked my naive approach to formal analysis.

Austin Young
Austin Young

Not perfect
Precisely. Such system is not safe.
If you remove bad features
Which sjwfox uses plentifully.
I asked you to prove the set of features specifically in firefox right now does not fit the bill.
Any feature that won't get compiled by a verified compiler (be it C or C+). Also note that even if you got a C++17 compliant verified compiler, you'd still have to do the same for Rust since it got integrated into its codebase.
If you want a specific list, you'll have to wait till monday since i don't have access to verified C+ compiler outside of work.
t. assblasted ape who got schooled on verification

Grayson Jenkins
Grayson Jenkins

not safe.
Proof? Any unoptimised disassembly I've cared to check looks fine, which does not refute the validity of the abstract code in any way.
plentifully
Yikes.
Rust
Fine by me, one step at a time.

John Reed
John Reed

Proof?
Lack of proof of your binary being correct. Simple.
For a safe system, you need to prove everything. You don't stop arbitrarily when it becomes inconvenient to you.
Any unoptimised disassembly I've cared to check looks fine
If this had any relevance to safety, we wouldn't have hundreds of CVEs in audited software.
Yikes
You can look at eCv++ for a complete list of supported features. Can't be assed to spoonfeed you.
Fine by me
You'd better get on it, i heard rustbelt is having difficulties modeling lifetimes.

Luke Ortiz
Luke Ortiz

Lack of proof
Is not the proof of lack, not that simple. Assuming false by default is a fallacy.
relevance
If you fix a vulnerability by changing the source code, then it was the source code, not the compiler. Let's see the CVEs on -O0.

Andrew Martin
Andrew Martin

Assuming false by default is a fallacy.
Not when it comes to safety. Assuming safety is ridiculous, everyone in this idustry assumes non-safety by default.
Let's see the CVEs on -O0
Do it.

Daniel White
Daniel White

everyone
Big yike. It's disputed by default, you can't just throw your hands in the air.
Do it.
But I am........

Isaac Martinez
Isaac Martinez

the moment privacy possum gets ported to palemoon, i will

Brayden King
Brayden King

why aren't you using Pale moon
It still lacks Multiprocess and Quantum. The browser feels sluggish, and so do the pages I visit on it because of that.
I also don't like to be forced to old versions of addons or shitty incomplete alternatives like Stylem.

Jonathan Nguyen
Jonathan Nguyen

These addons that I use can't be used on PM
Yes they can. Here's the links:
Damage Control
Are you, perhaps, a fucking retard?

Nicholas Bailey
Nicholas Bailey

forks old Firefox ESR and calls it "retard moon"
no CVEs exist for "retard moon"
ergo, retard moon is safer than new Firefox

Josiah Wilson
Josiah Wilson

how many pale meme users does it take to change a lightbulb?
answer: three.
one to hold the ladder, one to screw in the new bulb, and a third furry to explain to everyone how the light bulb never actually burned out and was never a big deal to begin with because it was only that extra storage closet you never went into except like once a year for xmas decorations

Evan Long
Evan Long

blacklists AdNauseam

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit