git://git.nikiroo.be / gofetch.git / blame
| Commit | Line | Data |
|---|---|---|
| 299a08f3 NR |
1 | TOR BROWSER GETS A REDESIGN, SWITCHES TO NEW FIREFOX QUANTUM \r |
| 2 | ENGINE (ZDNET.COM) \r | |
| 3 | \r | |
| 4 | Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (msmash)\r | |
| 5 | from the for-the-record dept.\r | |
| 6 | \r | |
| c715ea02 | 7 | o Reference: 0102637536\r |
| 299a08f3 NR |
8 | o News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1651255/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine\r |
| 9 | o Source link: https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine/\r | |
| 10 | \r | |
| 11 | \r | |
| 12 | The Tor Browser has rolled out a new interface with the\r | |
| 13 | release of v8. From a report: The Tor Browser has always been\r | |
| 14 | based on the Firefox codebase, but it lagged behind a few\r | |
| 15 | releases. Mozilla rolled out a major overhaul of the Firefox\r | |
| 16 | codebase in November 2017, with the release of Firefox 57, the\r | |
| 17 | first release in the Firefox Quantum series. Firefox Quantum\r | |
| 18 | came with a new page rendering engine, a new add-ons API, and\r | |
| 19 | a new user interface called the Photon UI. Because these were\r | |
| 20 | major, code-breaking changes, it took the smaller Tor team\r | |
| 21 | some time to integrate all of them into the Tor Browser\r | |
| 22 | codebase and make sure everything worked as intended. The new\r | |
| 23 | Tor Browser 8, released yesterday, is now in sync with the\r | |
| 24 | most recent version of Firefox, the Quantum release, and also\r | |
| 25 | supports all of its features. This means the Tor Browser now\r | |
| 26 | uses the same modern Photon UI that current Firefox versions\r | |
| 27 | use, it supports the same speed-optimized page rendering\r | |
| 28 | engine and has also dropped support for the old XUL-based\r | |
| 29 | add-ons system for the new WebExtensions API system used by\r | |
| 30 | Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, and the rest of the Chromium\r | |
| 31 | browsers.\r | |
| 32 | \r | |
| 33 | \r | |
| 34 | ** \r | |
| 35 | \r | |
| 36 | ** Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for (Score:1)\r | |
| 37 | (by Anonymous Coward)\r | |
| 38 | \r | |
| 39 | \r | |
| 40 | Not when you have the assets already cached. Most people\r | |
| 41 | donâ(TM)t just visit a site once. I was playing with it this\r | |
| 42 | morning. Itâ(TM)s a decent speed improvement even within the\r | |
| 43 | restraints of tor\r | |
| 44 | More impressively msmash posted an actual tech article not a\r | |
| 45 | biasedpolitical article for a change. Losing too many readers\r | |
| 46 | now I suspect\r | |
| 47 | \r | |
| 48 | \r | |
| 49 | ** Re: (Score:3, Insightful)\r | |
| 50 | (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))\r | |
| 51 | \r | |
| 52 | \r | |
| 53 | > It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.\r | |
| 54 | The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox codebase.\r | |
| 55 | Which by the way is awesome. I have all my favorite\r | |
| 56 | extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about the new\r | |
| 57 | Webextensions API.\r | |
| 58 | \r | |
| 59 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 60 | (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))\r | |
| 61 | \r | |
| 62 | \r | |
| 63 | >> It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.\r | |
| 64 | > The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox\r | |
| 65 | > codebase. Which by the way is awesome. I have all my\r | |
| 66 | > favorite extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about\r | |
| 67 | > the new Webextensions API.\r | |
| 68 | Why would anybody mod that comment troll?\r | |
| 69 | \r | |
| 70 | ** \r | |
| 71 | \r | |
| 72 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 73 | (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))\r | |
| 74 | \r | |
| 75 | \r | |
| 76 | It is FUD. Firefox's extension ecology is as vibrant\r | |
| 77 | as ever, but far more secure. And if somebody\r | |
| 78 | disagrees, they should do so instead of taking the\r | |
| 79 | belly slither route.\r | |
| 80 | \r | |
| 81 | ** \r | |
| 82 | \r | |
| 83 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 84 | (by theweatherelectric ( 2007596 ))\r | |
| 85 | \r | |
| 86 | \r | |
| 87 | You can use the built-in [1]Reader View\r | |
| 88 | [mozilla.org] for a lot of pages, but it's not\r | |
| 89 | available for all pages. It depends on the\r | |
| 90 | page structure.\r | |
| 91 | \r | |
| 92 | \r | |
| 93 | \r | |
| 94 | \r | |
| 95 | [1]\r | |
| 96 | https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-r-\r | |
| 97 | eader-view-clutter-free-web-pages\r | |
| 98 | \r | |
| 99 | \r | |
| 100 | \r | |
| 101 | \r | |
| 102 | \r | |
| 103 | \r | |
| 104 | \r | |
| 105 | ** Tested today (Score:1)\r | |
| 106 | (by Anonymous Coward)\r | |
| 107 | \r | |
| 108 | \r | |
| 109 | First impression is I like it. Video playback seems sluggish but\r | |
| 110 | overall positive. Hopefully any NSA addons did not make the cut.\r | |
| 111 | \r | |
| 112 | ** Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4, Interesting)\r | |
| 113 | (by dargaud ( 518470 ))\r | |
| 114 | \r | |
| 115 | \r | |
| 116 | I really wonder that. I support tor. I've never actually used it\r | |
| 117 | because I don't have much to hide, but I understand that other\r | |
| 118 | do. So I ran a tor relay (not exit) as my way of supporting the\r | |
| 119 | project for a while; from my home adsl. After a while I noticed\r | |
| 120 | some weird stuff going on. Some websites (important ones)\r | |
| 121 | wouldn't load properly. Emails sent would bounce or simply never\r | |
| 122 | reach their destination. After looking at the problem I found\r | |
| 123 | that my IP was on some minor blacklists. I stopped the relay and\r | |
| 124 | after 2 days I was off the blacklists. Hence my question, if\r | |
| 125 | running a simple relay gets you blacklisted, what does running\r | |
| 126 | an exit point does to your other internet usage from that IP ?\r | |
| 127 | Who can afford separate IPs besides institutions ? So who is\r | |
| 128 | really really running them ? Certainly not private citizens...\r | |
| 129 | \r | |
| 130 | ** Re: (Score:3)\r | |
| 131 | (by ftobin ( 48814 ))\r | |
| 132 | \r | |
| 133 | \r | |
| 134 | You can run something like a Linode instance pretty cheaply\r | |
| 135 | and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted exit node in\r | |
| 136 | the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and I've had the same\r | |
| 137 | problems with you if I try to use my Linode as a web proxy.\r | |
| 138 | My most recent problem has been with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS\r | |
| 139 | feeds, which are blocking my host :-\\r | |
| 140 | \r | |
| 141 | ** Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4,\r | |
| 142 | Informative)\r | |
| 143 | (by tlhIngan ( 30335 ))\r | |
| 144 | \r | |
| 145 | \r | |
| 146 | > You can run something like a Linode instance pretty\r | |
| 147 | > cheaply and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted\r | |
| 148 | > exit node in the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and\r | |
| 149 | > I've had the same problems with you if I try to use my\r | |
| 150 | > Linode as a web proxy. My most recent problem has been\r | |
| 151 | > with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS feeds, which are blocking my\r | |
| 152 | > host :-\\r | |
| 153 | And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,\r | |
| 154 | idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor\r | |
| 155 | exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular\r | |
| 156 | website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are and\r | |
| 157 | auto-blacklist t hem.\r | |
| 158 | It's why CDNs like CloudFlare block Tor - the abuse from\r | |
| 159 | Tor exit nodes ensures that whatever trigger you use,\r | |
| 160 | it'll be triggered and you'll end up blocking it. It's not\r | |
| 161 | like it's done deliberately - you don't have to seek out\r | |
| 162 | new Tor exit nodes. They just make themselves known.\r | |
| 163 | I'd even venture to say if you want to allow Tor traffic,\r | |
| 164 | you have to whitelist them specifically It's not that Tor\r | |
| 165 | is bad, it's just that it's got a bunch of bad actors that\r | |
| 166 | really do ruin it for those who need it.\r | |
| 167 | \r | |
| 168 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 169 | (by ftobin ( 48814 ))\r | |
| 170 | \r | |
| 171 | \r | |
| 172 | > And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,\r | |
| 173 | > idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor\r | |
| 174 | > exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular\r | |
| 175 | > website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are\r | |
| 176 | > and auto-blacklist t hem.\r | |
| 177 | I should mention that I don't and never did allow\r | |
| 178 | access on port 80 or 443, yet Shut up and Sit Down's\r | |
| 179 | RSS feed blocks me. There is no way my host was causing\r | |
| 180 | issues for their site, with the 20 KB/s of bandwidth I\r | |
| 181 | allowed. Additionally, I only allowed ports like IRC,\r | |
| 182 | DN\r | |
| 183 | \r | |
| 184 | \r | |
| 185 | \r | |
| 186 | \r | |
| 187 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 188 | (by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *)\r | |
| 189 | \r | |
| 190 | \r | |
| 191 | Check out the Library Freedom Project.\r | |
| 192 | \r | |
| 193 | \r | |
| 194 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 195 | (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))\r | |
| 196 | \r | |
| 197 | \r | |
| 198 | Governments.\r | |
| 199 | \r | |
| 200 | \r | |
| 201 | ** \r | |
| 202 | \r | |
| 203 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r | |
| 204 | (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))\r | |
| 205 | \r | |
| 206 | \r | |
| 207 | NSA, CIA, GCHQ did not worry about anonymous communication.\r | |
| 208 | Police with lots of cash per investigation at a national\r | |
| 209 | level don't worry about anonymous communication anymore.\r | |
| 210 | \r | |
| 211 | \r | |
| 212 | \r |