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