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 Reference: 0102637536
   8   o News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1651255/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine
   9   o Source link: https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine/
  10
  11
  12     The  Tor  Browser  has  [1]rolled  out a new interface with the
  13     release of v8 . From a report:
  14
  15     >  The  Tor  Browser  has  always  been  based  on  the Firefox
  16     codebase,  but  it lagged behind a few releases. Mozilla rolled
  17     out  a major overhaul of the Firefox codebase in November 2017,
  18     with  the  release  of  Firefox 57, [2]the first release in the
  19     Firefox  Quantum  series . Firefox Quantum came with a new page
  20     rendering  engine,  a new add-ons API, and a new user interface
  21     called  the  Photon UI. Because these were major, code-breaking
  22     changes,  it  took  the smaller Tor team some time to integrate
  23     all  of  them  into  the  Tor  Browser  codebase  and make sure
  24     everything  worked as intended. The new Tor Browser 8, released
  25     yesterday,  is  now  in  sync  with  the most recent version of
  26     Firefox,  the  Quantum  release,  and  also supports all of its
  27     features.  This  means the Tor Browser now uses the same modern
  28     Photon  UI  that  current Firefox versions use, it supports the
  29     same   speed-optimized  page  rendering  engine  and  has  also
  30     dropped  support  for  the old XUL-based add-ons system for the
  31     new  WebExtensions  API  system used by Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi,
  32     Brave, and the rest of the Chromium browsers.
  33
  34
  35
  36     [1]  https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-
  37     switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine/
  38
  39     [2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/25/1938225/firefox-q-
  40     uantum-is-better-faster-smarter-than-chrome-says-wired
  41
  42
  43   **
  44
  45      ** Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for (Score:1)
  46         (by Anonymous Coward)
  47
  48
  49         Not when you have the assets already cached. Most people
  50         donâ(TM)t just visit a site once. I was playing with it this
  51         morning. Itâ(TM)s a decent speed improvement even within the
  52         restraints of tor
  53         More impressively msmash posted an actual tech article not a
  54         biasedpolitical article for a change. Losing too many readers
  55         now I suspect
  56
  57
  58      ** Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
  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 codebase.
  64         Which by the way is awesome. I have all my favorite
  65         extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about the new
  66         Webextensions API.
  67
  68         ** Re: (Score:2)
  69            (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))
  70
  71
  72            >> It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.
  73            > The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox
  74            > codebase. Which by the way is awesome. I have all my
  75            > favorite extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about
  76            > the new Webextensions API.
  77            Why would anybody mod that comment troll?
  78
  79            **
  80
  81               ** Re: (Score:2)
  82                  (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))
  83
  84
  85                  It is FUD. Firefox's extension ecology is as vibrant
  86                  as ever, but far more secure. And if somebody
  87                  disagrees, they should do so instead of taking the
  88                  belly slither route.
  89
  90                  **
  91
  92                     ** Re: (Score:2)
  93                        (by theweatherelectric ( 2007596 ))
  94
  95
  96                        You can use the built-in [1]Reader View
  97                        [mozilla.org] for a lot of pages, but it's not
  98                        available for all pages. It depends on the
  99                        page structure.
 100
 101
 102
 103
 104                        [1]
 105                        https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-r-
 106                        eader-view-clutter-free-web-pages
 107
 108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 113
 114   ** Tested today (Score:1)
 115      (by Anonymous Coward)
 116
 117
 118      First impression is I like it. Video playback seems sluggish but
 119      overall positive. Hopefully any NSA addons did not make the cut.
 120
 121   ** Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4, Interesting)
 122      (by dargaud ( 518470 ))
 123
 124
 125      I really wonder that. I support tor. I've never actually used it
 126      because I don't have much to hide, but I understand that other
 127      do. So I ran a tor relay (not exit) as my way of supporting the
 128      project for a while; from my home adsl. After a while I noticed
 129      some weird stuff going on. Some websites (important ones)
 130      wouldn't load properly. Emails sent would bounce or simply never
 131      reach their destination. After looking at the problem I found
 132      that my IP was on some minor blacklists. I stopped the relay and
 133      after 2 days I was off the blacklists. Hence my question, if
 134      running a simple relay gets you blacklisted, what does running
 135      an exit point does to your other internet usage from that IP ?
 136      Who can afford separate IPs besides institutions ? So who is
 137      really really running them ? Certainly not private citizens...
 138
 139      ** Re: (Score:3)
 140         (by ftobin ( 48814 ))
 141
 142
 143         You can run something like a Linode instance pretty cheaply
 144         and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted exit node in
 145         the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and I've had the same
 146         problems with you if I try to use my Linode as a web proxy.
 147         My most recent problem has been with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS
 148         feeds, which are blocking my host  :-\
 149
 150         ** Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4,
 151            Informative)
 152            (by tlhIngan ( 30335 ))
 153
 154
 155            > You can run something like a Linode instance pretty
 156            > cheaply and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted
 157            > exit node in the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and
 158            > I've had the same problems with you if I try to use my
 159            > Linode as a web proxy. My most recent problem has been
 160            > with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS feeds, which are blocking my
 161            > host  :-\
 162            And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,
 163            idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor
 164            exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular
 165            website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are and
 166            auto-blacklist t hem.
 167            It's why CDNs like CloudFlare block Tor - the abuse from
 168            Tor exit nodes ensures that whatever trigger you use,
 169            it'll be triggered and you'll end up blocking it. It's not
 170            like it's done deliberately - you don't have to seek out
 171            new Tor exit nodes. They just make themselves known.
 172            I'd even venture to say if you want to allow Tor traffic,
 173            you have to whitelist them specifically It's not that Tor
 174            is bad, it's just that it's got a bunch of bad actors that
 175            really do ruin it for those who need it.
 176
 177            ** Re: (Score:2)
 178               (by ftobin ( 48814 ))
 179
 180
 181               > And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,
 182               > idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor
 183               > exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular
 184               > website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are
 185               > and auto-blacklist t hem.
 186               I should mention that I don't and never did allow
 187               access on port 80 or 443, yet Shut up and Sit Down's
 188               RSS feed blocks me. There is no way my host was causing
 189               issues for their site, with the 20 KB/s of bandwidth I
 190               allowed. Additionally, I only allowed ports like IRC,
 191               DN
 192
 193
 194
 195
 196      ** Re: (Score:2)
 197         (by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *)
 198
 199
 200         Check out the Library Freedom Project.
 201
 202
 203      ** Re: (Score:2)
 204         (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))
 205
 206
 207         Governments.
 208
 209
 210   **
 211
 212      ** Re: (Score:2)
 213         (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))
 214
 215
 216         NSA, CIA, GCHQ did not worry about anonymous communication.
 217         Police with lots of cash per investigation at a national
 218         level don't worry about anonymous communication anymore.
 219
 220
 221