Mark Smith: > On 1/10/17 5:27 AM, anonym wrote: >> Michael Carbone: >>> The move away from XUL could be an opportunity to address this by >>> building a more generic solution that could be used by the increasing >>> number of tor-powered applications/environments, such as onionshare, >>> ricochet, tails, qubes, subgraph, etc., in addition to tor browser and >>> tor messenger. > > We talked about this a little bit yesterday during our Tor Browser team > meeting on #tor-dev. > > The tight integration of Tor Launcher within the browser has been a big > win for both user experience and for maintenance of the launcher and > configuration code.
Fully understood. > Our current plan for Tor Browser is to migrate Torbutton and Tor > Launcher to the WebExtensions APIs, extending and adding new APIs as > needed (and hopefully Mozilla will help us). See > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17248. Yeah, I've seen it. Like I said in the other sub-thread, this would still work for Tails if there was an option to emulate "standalone XUL application"-mode by simply suppressing the browser window. >> Indeed! In Tails we have a ticket and blueprint tracking something like >> this: >> >> https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/10491 >> https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/network_connection/ >> >> Of course, our configuration tool would also include OS-level stuff, but >> I guess SubgraphOS/Qubes/Whonix would also be interested in that. At >> least it'd be nice if code could be shared (e.g. we can import the Tor >> configuration parts via a module and use the same in our application). >> Bonus if it's written in Python, building on the ecosystem of >> Tor-related project we already have there (primarily stem). >> >> I expect that some Tails people attending the Tor dev meeting in March >> might be interested in discussing this. > > I think it is definitely worthwhile to talk more about this. Let's do it then! > If code cannot be shared, at least UI designs can be. Absolutely! If it is not already stated as a goal that this new configuration tool would design the parts about Tor configuration the same way as Tor Launcher (or whatever) does for the vanilla Tor Browser. > It is also worth noting that Yawning created a new launcher/updater for > Linux as part of his Sandboxed Tor Browser Project (it uses go, Gtk+ 3, > and libnotify). > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorBrowser/Sandbox/Linux Interesting, but I wonder how much of this launcher that is about setting up the sandboxes -- my fear is that it simply is designed for something else than what we want. Any way, I haven't looked at it, I'm just speculating. :) However, the need for a standalone Tor Launcher-like application is not limited to Tails. Clearly Whonix wants one since Patrick started this topic, and I could see e.g. OnionShare, and non-mozilla bundles (that cannot use your WebExtension) wanting to use something like that. It feels a bit odd to me if they would depend on e.g. Tor Browser, which currently is the case for e.g. OnionShare. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.