Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 16:35 +0100, lourivell...@gmail.com wrote: > What do you guys think about BS that mozilla pulled by installing an addon > without the users consent? I was just in the process of fully switching to > Firefox - despite knowing that they were basically just the lesser evil. I > figured as long as the product was good, and I could configure my browser > with privacy in mind, Id give it a shot. Well they are showing thier true > colors - I will not be using firefox anymore. > > Whats the next best alternative? > Waterfox? Waerfox has freedom issues. > Icecat? IceCat is good. > Pale Moon? This has freedom issues. > Vivaldi? This is proprietary software. Do not use it. > > And what do you think about Brave? I kinda get the same feel about Brave > that I do about Mozilla. This has freedom issues, because it contains Chromium code, which itself has freedom issues.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Tx, Alij, will do.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Love you SuperTrump. ;) check this out too > https://webdevelopmentaid.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/customize-privacy-settings-in-mozilla-firefox-part-1-aboutconfig/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Does anyone know if or when Abrowser 57 will be available for Trisquel 7.0?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I have also installed FF Quantum recently and it is really great in terms of speed and new features but I came across some really sad news about Mozilla. They are implementing DRM on videos played with their browser, also they are spying on the users, removing people from the rise up mail server if they don't agree with Mozilla's political views. http://lunduke.com/2017/12/17/mozilla-is-not-trustworthy/ https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-holds-its-nose-and-supports-drm-video-in-firefox/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Waterfox, Abrowser or Iceweasel if your using hyperbola/parabola.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
No addon was ever installed here and that's because the relevant feature was disabled here so that shit would not work... There are many websites dealing with FF antifeatures or security or privacy issues but really I think all you need is this one user.js file (and noscript).. https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
lourivell...@gmail.com wrote: What do you guys think about BS that mozilla pulled by installing an addon without the users consent? While I can understand that this was not handled well in terms of public relations, I think it's mostly a manufactured outrage (an excuse to be righteously indignant over something relatively minor) for those who don't look at the issue in terms of software freedom. I think you'll find that the browsers with the most serious focus on privacy (such as TorBrowser) still build on some variant of Firefox (Firefox ESR, if I recall correctly). There's good reason for that and you should consider that before you carry out your decision to not use Firefox anymore. I was just in the process of fully switching to Firefox - despite knowing that they were basically just the lesser evil. I figured as long as the product was good, and I could configure my browser with privacy in mind, Id give it a shot. You're not going to get that capability with any nonfree software. Respect for privacy requires free software. Well they are showing thier true colors - I will not be using firefox anymore. I don't understand how "true colors" is being defined here. True colors is set by one instance where a long-standing free software web developer distributes additional free software that does something you don't like? This seems indistinguishable from ignoring years of free software-respecting history. Let's not forget that all Firefox users still get their software freedom respected with Firefox -- one could choose to inspect the code, remove objectionable code, distribute the result (to help one's community), and encourage others to use that variant instead of the upstream code. If any nonfree browser distributor did what Mozilla did, users of that browser wouldn't have these freedoms to help themselves fix the problem; they'd have to wait for the very party that treated them badly to fix that problem (and always wonder if there was other objectionable code remaining).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I guess my biggest requirement for a browser is that its completely FOSS, and doesn't have any proprietary code built into it. So something like Pale Moon is out for me. Tor was just too slow last time I used it. I am fine with some tracking as long as I consent to it. Im worried about code I cant see, and it behaving like Firefox just did. Maybe Icecat is the best option for me.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
If your only problem with Firefox is its addon policies, Abrowser is the most similar alternative that addresses that. The version of Abrowser in the Trisquel 8 repository has already been updated to version 57. Icecat would be a good option if you would like some additional privacy features and don't mind that it's based on an older version of Firefox. However, anonymity is a prerequisite for privacy. Use Tor Browser if you are truly concerned for your privacy.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
When researching FOSS browsers, you get back firefox, chromium, etc - which arent totally FOSS. Why seamonkey over the other ones listed? Are they not totally free? Which ones of the ones I listed are FOSS?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Pale Moon binaries are proprietary. Why not use Seamonkey if you are happy with an older design and a more traditional appearance. Dillo, Netsurf... There's a whole bunch of browsers out there to choose from.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
What do you guys think about BS that mozilla pulled by installing an addon without the users consent? I was just in the process of fully switching to Firefox - despite knowing that they were basically just the lesser evil. I figured as long as the product was good, and I could configure my browser with privacy in mind, Id give it a shot. Well they are showing thier true colors - I will not be using firefox anymore. Whats the next best alternative? Waterfox? Icecat? Pale Moon? Vivaldi? And what do you think about Brave? I kinda get the same feel about Brave that I do about Mozilla.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
It also solves a lot of security issues that plagued the old extension system.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
No.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Is Firefox Quantum available inside the Trisquel's repositories?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Switching to WebExtensions is important. It standardizes the format for browser extensions so that you can write an extension once and it will generally work in any browser that supports browser extensions. You don't want Mozilla to keep changing the extension format, do you? WebExtensions is the last time we'll ever have to change it, because it's a standard supported by Chrome, Edge and Safari.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
oralfloss The fact that all the add-ons have to be re-written just for this quantum update seems really inconvenient. It boils down on the writing of the new web browser, I don't see any problems with updating it those security related addons.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I think the fact it has the "Recommended by Pocket" section on the new tab by default is quite intrusive. It's basically like an advertisement and it does seem to be tailored to my interests (which makes me wonder how they got this information in the first place). I know you can easily disable it but the fact that it is there in the first place by default really annoys me. Also the fact that a lot of security-related addons are no longer supported like Request Policy really sucks. The fact that all the add-ons have to be re-written just for this quantum update seems really inconvenient.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I use the KWallet extension and Saved Password Editor.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Well, I personally think that the title of this thread would work just fine for gossiping about you behind your back, even though I don't always agree 100% with everything you say. ;) But what do I know.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Smooth as silk...
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
All I've had time to do is install it, but noscript, privacy badger, etc. are all available now. I started from scratch and haven't tried importing any of my existing firefox profiles yet. When I tried to start from scratch with an earlier version of Firefox while distrohopping, I discovered the unpleasant reality that the plug-ins for older versions of Firefox are no longer available, at least from Mozilla. That's probably no surprise to a lot of you, but if any of you are inconvenienced by that, I believe I still have a profile with noscript, privacy badger, etc. installed and no personally identifiable information. I probably shouldn't share that with random strangers online, but if you drop me a private email and you're a regular(ish) on the forums, I probably will anyway.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
No problem, Heather. I'm glad you are here too. I think we have a great community here on the Trisquel forum and hopefully we can all move the cause of free software forward together :-) I haven't tried Firefox Quantum myself yet, but I will report back if/when I do.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Yeah I started fresh (I deleted the profile folder). I think uBlock came preinstalled on the version I got from AUR (on Hyperbola). I think the offending add-on is the color inverter - unfortunately the interface is unusable with inverted colors unlike Seamonkey. It takes a whole second to invert the colors after loading the page. On a netbook Abrowser 57 simply froze while installing add-ons. On a T60 it works OK (startup is fast but pages take 2 seconds longer than Seamonkey to load), but much slower than Seamonkey (and much less functional: no PulseAudio, no Mozplugger/mpv etc).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Did you start fresh when you installed it? Also ublock should definitely not come preinstalled.. I recommend you purge your .mozilla folder in home and your mozilla cache in /home/.cache, start it up and install one addon at the time, so you can spot the one that is slowing it down for you. Quantum should be fast for you.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
For me the latest abrowser (57) is very slow. Startup is fast, but it now takes me over 4 seconds to completely load a page, e.g. Slashdot. I'm using the following enabled add-ons: Dark Background and Light Text, NoScript, User Agent Switcher 1.12 (as a replacement for the regular User Agent Switcher), Violentmonkey (as Greasemonkey doesn't seem to work) and YouTube Video and Audio Downloader (as a substitute for Download Flash and Video which didn't find any videos on YouTube with JavaScript disabled). I still didn't find any replacements for DownThemAll! or FlashGot. It isn't my main browser thankfully (and it won't be as long as PulseAudio is a requirement), but it's still rather disappointing.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Nah, I thought your joke was funny and it got (at least) me seeing the humour in potentially unpleasant situations elsewhere. It definitely worked. Sometimes people who are still learning English come up with insights that native speakers didn't see. It's a weird language. I am glad that you are here. Quantum is going on my T8 install as soon as I get a spare moment and then I might actually have something to contribute to this thread. ;) Surf has also been recommended as a possible non-mozilla based browser. I like Dillo for it's "idiot-resistant" features but I can't remember the last time I've gotten anything from their mailing list and I've never configured it for anything more practical than looking around without java. W3m is also new to me and I love it for when a more old fashioned text browser like Lynx or Links isn't enough and a GUI browser is just going to give you a headache. There are negative reports about Quantum elsewhere that I don't need to repeat, but it sounds like the positives outweigh them, it's just going to take a bit of elbow grease to get things set up. Thank you so much!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I like the 'density - compact' in customize, less space taken by GUI, more space for teh site. I heard in the next version or two there will also be an option to hide the titlebar, thet's even more space, very useful for those with small monitors, think laptops. In the meanwhile been experimenting with devilspie as described here. Looks good..
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
viejito, if you open up your TorBB and copy the value for the useragent (windows7, ff-esr) and disable js and redo the test you should see your fingerprint has lowered drastically. Another good website to check the fingerprint is https://browserprint.info/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
extensions.pocket.enabledfalse extensions.pocket.site extensions.pocket.api That should disable it completely I guess.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
No, I wasn't trying to be that clever .. The joke was funny because it was mine - lol! XD
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Yeah, this sounds very good :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
supertramp I download from the website and I'm impress with it, specially the speed and clarity. Yet the foot print is very sort of stable. https://panopticlick.eff.org my panoptclick results are How well are you protected against non-consensual Web tracking? After analyzing your browser and add-ons, the answer is ... Yes! You have strong protection against Web tracking, though your software isn’t checking for Do Not Track policies. Help us defend the Web against tracking: TestResult Is your browser blocking tracking ads? ✓ yes Is your browser blocking invisible trackers?✓ yes Does your browser unblock 3rd parties that promise to honor Do Not Track? ✗ no Does your browser protect from fingerprinting? ✗ your browser has a unique fingerprint Note: because tracking techniques are complex, subtle, and constantly evolving, Panopticlick does not measure all forms of tracking and protection. Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 846,502 tested so far. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 19.69 bits of identifying information. Did you decided to use abrowser or icecat?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
anybody can Pocket be disabled completely it is annoying. also firefox 57 addons are not compatible with the old firefox-es
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Wow, so, they did a great job.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Trisquel 8.0 I have it installed.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Just a friendly reminder for those using the new noscript extension and having troubles figuring out how to make it as secure as the old one (well, almost.. clickjacking and ABE are still missing). Instead of untrusting websites and making long list just make your default 'all unchecked'. Strictest 'custom' to make a website completely usable (diaspora for instance) is you check only "script" and "fetch".
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Sure, vita_cell, it's an old (2007) laptop, AMD cpu dual core 1900 Mhz max, 3 gb RAM (old original ram), GPU old nvidia. A 2007 laptop completely loading Firefox in 5 seconds on each subsequent load, and then running smooth as hell all the time on all websites - fantastic :) Don't have to wait 20 seconds anymore, which was one of the things that annoyed me the most.. \o/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
The noscript tag isn't "served" based on what the server thinks, it's a browser behavior to cause content within those tags to be visible. The problem is that the extensions in question don't actually disable JavaScript, so Firefox's un-hiding of these elements is not triggered. In the previous version of NoScript, it was (as long as you had that enabled in the add-on preferences). For me it's not just annoying, it's completely unworkable. One of the forums I frequent has a silly JavaScript-based "rich text" post editor and a fallback basic one inside a noscript tag. If I have the new NoScript enabled, I cannot post at all on that forum (unless I whitelist that site and allow its JavaScript to run).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I know about all that. I was asking if the joke was funny because it was an implication that IceCat is simultaneously dead and alive, and you won't know until you install it.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
SuperTramp can you share your computer hardware specifications?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Do you use/are there extensions for password-store?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I don't get the joke. Could you explain?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Firefox is the only free browser that can run free web apps.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
What?! Really?! Ign http://nl.archive.trisquel.info belenos-updates/main Translation-en Fetched 5,209 B in 5s (1,011 B/s) Reading package lists... Done cal@leela:~$ apt search abrowser Sorting... Done Full Text Search... Done abrowser/belenos-security,belenos-updates,now 56.0+build6-0ubuntu0.14.04.2+7.0trisquel49 amd64 [installed] Safe and easy web browser from Mozilla No... And I did sudo apt update
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Quantum really does kick ass. I can't wait for Abrowser 57. (Firefox is filled with annoying ads and links to services that require proprietary JavaScript.)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Really? So version 48 supports both? In that case, I wonder what took all the add-on developers so long to convert their extensions over. When my browser got updated, there were no add-ons that could turn JavaScript off. Now there are two that I'm aware of, and both are completely inadequate because they don't cause noscript tags to show up (NoScript is one of the two). So now, I'm stick with toggling JavaScript in about:config, because that's literally the only possible way to toggle JavaScript (and the irony of this is that the fact that the old NoScript could effectively work as a JavaScript toggle was one of the justifications for removing the "JavaScript" checkbox in the options menu). Hopefully add-ons will catch up eventually. As it is, the only incentives I have to use Firefox instead of another libre browser (like Midori) are WebKit security issues and the fact that I've already got all my bookmarks and saved passwords in Firefox. * Firefox (with Greasemonkey) is the only browser I've used where user scripts work without other JavaScript enabled. I'm not sure why.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Abrowser is already updated to version 57.0 :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Well, I have used it for a couple of days with javascript.enabled turned off in about:config. Today I installed noscript, which is also the only addon I have used lately.. So, I am set :)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
>Guys if new Firefox flies, what about RAM consumption? It is very good. Vanilla FF without addons takes approximately 140 mb RAM here while 52 used to take around 210.. But really, the big difference is noticeable on old hardware and on heavy pages. Diaspora for example, the feeling I get it is at least twice smoother, I kid you not :) Mouzilllaa \o/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I wish Mozilla had done a release that supported both types of add-ons so that the add-on transition could be smoother. But oh well, what's done is done.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Good question! My biggest issue with the old Firefox was that it quickly shovelled all of my RAM into a burlap sack and then made all my other applications ask *very* nicely, if they ever wanted to use any of it .. "You other guys aren't going to be needing any of this, are you?" ;)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Who needs ultra 4k HD icons?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Guys if new Firefox flies, what about RAM consumption?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Supertramp Monsenor what version did you downloaded from? what version for windows, debian or a specific one.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Once 59 ESR comes out.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Yay! Do you think Tor Browser will use this as its new base?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
However, Abrowser will be (or "is") on the Trisquel repos? Because Parabola hackers haves some issues for compile it and I don't know if the rebranding proceeding has been changed for Firefox Quantum. I've tested Firefox 57 and floats!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I guess I will try 57 out, but I'm sticking with 52 ESR until 59 ESR comes out. Hopefully by then all of my addons will have WebExtensions versions... (By the way a WebExtensions version of NoScript is out.)
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Thanks for the tip. It is pretty fast indeed.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Really thought you're talking about me!!
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I dislike the new icon though. Icons are becoming simpler even as computers are becoming more powerful and therefore less burdened by detailed and complex icons.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
Sounds good to me. I'm sticking to Icecat as much as I can as long as I can, but relieved that it's not all bad news.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
When we gets the Icecat version? (I propose we call it 'Schrodinger's Icecat' ;-) )
Re: [Trisquel-users] Quantum kicks ass
I can confirm: 57 really flies. I’ll stick to FF ESR, though, until Noscript is out.
