--- /dev/null
+ TOR BROWSER GETS A REDESIGN, SWITCHES TO NEW FIREFOX QUANTUM \r
+ ENGINE (ZDNET.COM) \r
+\r
+ Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (msmash)\r
+ from the for-the-record dept.\r
+\r
+ o News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/1651255/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine\r
+ o Source link: https://www.zdnet.com/article/tor-browser-gets-a-redesign-switches-to-new-firefox-quantum-engine/\r
+\r
+\r
+ The Tor Browser has rolled out a new interface with the\r
+ release of v8. From a report: The Tor Browser has always been\r
+ based on the Firefox codebase, but it lagged behind a few\r
+ releases. Mozilla rolled out a major overhaul of the Firefox\r
+ codebase in November 2017, with the release of Firefox 57, the\r
+ first release in the Firefox Quantum series. Firefox Quantum\r
+ came with a new page rendering engine, a new add-ons API, and\r
+ a new user interface called the Photon UI. Because these were\r
+ major, code-breaking changes, it took the smaller Tor team\r
+ some time to integrate all of them into the Tor Browser\r
+ codebase and make sure everything worked as intended. The new\r
+ Tor Browser 8, released yesterday, is now in sync with the\r
+ most recent version of Firefox, the Quantum release, and also\r
+ supports all of its features. This means the Tor Browser now\r
+ uses the same modern Photon UI that current Firefox versions\r
+ use, it supports the same speed-optimized page rendering\r
+ engine and has also dropped support for the old XUL-based\r
+ add-ons system for the new WebExtensions API system used by\r
+ Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, and the rest of the Chromium\r
+ browsers.\r
+\r
+\r
+ ** \r
+\r
+ ** Re: Isn't page render speed pretty irrelevant for (Score:1)\r
+ (by Anonymous Coward)\r
+\r
+ \r
+ Not when you have the assets already cached. Most people\r
+ donâ(TM)t just visit a site once. I was playing with it this\r
+ morning. Itâ(TM)s a decent speed improvement even within the\r
+ restraints of tor\r
+ More impressively msmash posted an actual tech article not a\r
+ biasedpolitical article for a change. Losing too many readers\r
+ now I suspect\r
+\r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:3, Insightful)\r
+ (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ > It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.\r
+ The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox codebase.\r
+ Which by the way is awesome. I have all my favorite\r
+ extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about the new\r
+ Webextensions API.\r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ >> It's not like a new page renderer is going to solve that.\r
+ > The point is to be synced up to the current Firefox\r
+ > codebase. Which by the way is awesome. I have all my\r
+ > favorite extensions running, in spite of all the FUD about\r
+ > the new Webextensions API.\r
+ Why would anybody mod that comment troll?\r
+\r
+ ** \r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by Tough Love ( 215404 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ It is FUD. Firefox's extension ecology is as vibrant\r
+ as ever, but far more secure. And if somebody\r
+ disagrees, they should do so instead of taking the\r
+ belly slither route.\r
+\r
+ ** \r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by theweatherelectric ( 2007596 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ You can use the built-in [1]Reader View\r
+ [mozilla.org] for a lot of pages, but it's not\r
+ available for all pages. It depends on the\r
+ page structure.\r
+ \r
+ \r
+ \r
+ \r
+ [1]\r
+ https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-r-\r
+ eader-view-clutter-free-web-pages\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+ ** Tested today (Score:1)\r
+ (by Anonymous Coward)\r
+\r
+ \r
+ First impression is I like it. Video playback seems sluggish but\r
+ overall positive. Hopefully any NSA addons did not make the cut.\r
+\r
+ ** Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4, Interesting)\r
+ (by dargaud ( 518470 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ I really wonder that. I support tor. I've never actually used it\r
+ because I don't have much to hide, but I understand that other\r
+ do. So I ran a tor relay (not exit) as my way of supporting the\r
+ project for a while; from my home adsl. After a while I noticed\r
+ some weird stuff going on. Some websites (important ones)\r
+ wouldn't load properly. Emails sent would bounce or simply never\r
+ reach their destination. After looking at the problem I found\r
+ that my IP was on some minor blacklists. I stopped the relay and\r
+ after 2 days I was off the blacklists. Hence my question, if\r
+ running a simple relay gets you blacklisted, what does running\r
+ an exit point does to your other internet usage from that IP ?\r
+ Who can afford separate IPs besides institutions ? So who is\r
+ really really running them ? Certainly not private citizens...\r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:3)\r
+ (by ftobin ( 48814 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ You can run something like a Linode instance pretty cheaply\r
+ and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted exit node in\r
+ the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and I've had the same\r
+ problems with you if I try to use my Linode as a web proxy.\r
+ My most recent problem has been with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS\r
+ feeds, which are blocking my host :-\\r
+\r
+ ** Re:Who can afford to run a tor exit node ? (Score:4,\r
+ Informative)\r
+ (by tlhIngan ( 30335 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ > You can run something like a Linode instance pretty\r
+ > cheaply and get more IPs. I've run a highly restricted\r
+ > exit node in the past (low bandwidth, select ports), and\r
+ > I've had the same problems with you if I try to use my\r
+ > Linode as a web proxy. My most recent problem has been\r
+ > with Shut Up and Sit Down RSS feeds, which are blocking my\r
+ > host :-\\r
+ And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,\r
+ idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor\r
+ exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular\r
+ website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are and\r
+ auto-blacklist t hem.\r
+ It's why CDNs like CloudFlare block Tor - the abuse from\r
+ Tor exit nodes ensures that whatever trigger you use,\r
+ it'll be triggered and you'll end up blocking it. It's not\r
+ like it's done deliberately - you don't have to seek out\r
+ new Tor exit nodes. They just make themselves known.\r
+ I'd even venture to say if you want to allow Tor traffic,\r
+ you have to whitelist them specifically It's not that Tor\r
+ is bad, it's just that it's got a bunch of bad actors that\r
+ really do ruin it for those who need it.\r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by ftobin ( 48814 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ > And that's just because no matter how noble the cause,\r
+ > idiots will just ruin it. You don't need a list of Tor\r
+ > exit nodes because if you run a reasonably popular\r
+ > website, you'll find out quite rapidly what they are\r
+ > and auto-blacklist t hem.\r
+ I should mention that I don't and never did allow\r
+ access on port 80 or 443, yet Shut up and Sit Down's\r
+ RSS feed blocks me. There is no way my host was causing\r
+ issues for their site, with the 20 KB/s of bandwidth I\r
+ allowed. Additionally, I only allowed ports like IRC,\r
+ DN\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *)\r
+\r
+ \r
+ Check out the Library Freedom Project.\r
+\r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ Governments.\r
+\r
+\r
+ ** \r
+\r
+ ** Re: (Score:2)\r
+ (by AHuxley ( 892839 ))\r
+\r
+ \r
+ NSA, CIA, GCHQ did not worry about anonymous communication.\r
+ Police with lots of cash per investigation at a national\r
+ level don't worry about anonymous communication anymore.\r
+\r
+\r
+\r
git://git.nikiroo.be / gofetch.git / blobdiff