test/expected/SLASHDOT/0102637536

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