Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
asleepyet wrote: "everyone = me?" me me or you me? please clarify. I meant me but now I'm not the only one... -but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow it is I'm sure they would welcome your expert engineering skills if you'd like to join the project. it's just a network? yes, designed for anonymity based somewhat on the idea of the old email remailers. build your own? Caleb DeLisle did. Have a look at cjdns. don't get mad at me but I can not in good faith believe you have ever used TOR before. I have had to use it in the past for research but not on a daily basis. TOR strongly advises against making any changes to your TOR browser You are confusing the network project with the browser project. It's like assuming Firefox is the Internet. Please do a search "TOR compromised" "person sent to jail TOR" "TOR exit nodes compromised" and feel free to be surprised by the results. Actually, it was only once & the court let the FBI not disclose their methods. I do follow these things because it's my job to do so. It's important to use a good browser on a good operating system because using a good browser on a bad operating system is the same if not worse (because of the added false sense of security) as using as bad browser on a bad operating system. Your contributions to OS & application architecture has been invaluable. Your employer & colleagues must be very proud. -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
[Bug-gnuzilla] Windows Installer for IceCat
Hello, First of all, I would like to say thank you to the IceCat and GNU community! You all do a great job in making and promoting free software! I am also a big fan of GNU software. I try to promote to friends and colleagues as much as I can. Recently a friend of mine told me that he was really motivated to install IceCat on his PCs at his company However he struggled to do it, because he found no Windows installer and lacked of IT skills. And I think there are many people in this case. There is an answer, switch to a GNU distro, but many people won't or simply can't. I believe that having a Windows installer for IceCat could help to spread free software philosophy. Honestly I am tired of hearing people calling Firefox 'free software' whereas it really isn't. I don't know whether creating a Windows installer for IceCat is a big amount of work or not, but I think it would be worth it. Anyway thanks for reading my message! All the best. -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
Go away troll, or else I'll take steps to ban you from this list. This is your final warning. Mark writes: > I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions with me > and being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am > talking about, while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded > excuse to back up your own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no > mentioned facts or reasons" without actually providing evidence that > supports your claims against me even though I'm the one always > pointing out the truth because I want people to wake up. How > convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages > to me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose > chase back and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before > and I'll say it again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my > emails as spam. I honestly do not enjoy our interactions and I > politely request that you Julie, personally mark me as spam once and > for all. But I know you wont, because that doesn't accomplish your > goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody is going to shut me up. I love > helping people so please I kindly ask that you prove me wrong and > don't message me again. > > 24. Mar 2017 09:01 by onp...@riseup.net: > > On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, awake...@tutanota.de wrote: > > I point out your missteps in logic > > Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about? > > you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of > what you appeared to originally intend to say. > > What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part > of my message made you perceive that? > > you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts > and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you. > > I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your > email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had > sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason. > > I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very > simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of > truth: > > 1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. > > 2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you > suggest. > > I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you > could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show > evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a > credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and > not, say, Tor Browser. > > I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the > important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, > and how many times it has been > compromised. thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the > creators of icecat have done. > > Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this > discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users' > privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how > convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat > has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in > attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor > Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show > that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free > to present it. > > In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are > the facts I can see: > > 1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates. > > 2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from > executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a > particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince > IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or > (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a > website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any > scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping > in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay, > "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot > reliably be protective against any sort of malicious JavaScript code; > its only protective effect is "security through obscurity". > > 3. When using Tor, IceCat blocks all requests for things like images, > unlike Tor Browser. This makes it possible for any website to > distinguish between Tor Browser and IceCat simply by embedding an image > onto the Web page and seeing whether or not the image was sent at the > time the Web page was loaded. > > 4. Other than LibreJS, which (as I explained) can easily be subverted, > IceCat offers no protection against malicious scripts exce
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
oh, playing nice now? I knew you wouldn't mark me as spam. you want to continue this game, what a surprise. 24. Mar 2017 18:59 by onp...@riseup.net: > > I'm afraid I won't argue with unsubstantiated speculation. However, if you > would like to answer the questions I have asked, that will get us on track > toward a proper debate based on evidence. > > -- > Julie Marchant > https://onpon4.github.io > On Mar 24, 2017 6:41 PM, > awake...@tutanota.de> wrote: > >> I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions >> with me and being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am >> talking about, while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded >> excuse to back up your own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no >> mentioned facts or reasons" without actually providing evidence that >> supports your claims against me even though I'm the one always pointing out >> the truth because I want people to wake up. >> How convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages >> to me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose chase >> back and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before and I'll say >> it again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my emails as spam. I >> honestly do not enjoy our interactions and I politely request that you >> Julie, personally mark me as spam once and for all. But I know you wont, >> because that doesn't accomplish your goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody >> is going to shut me up. I love helping people so please I kindly ask that >> you prove me wrong and don't message me again. >> >> 24. Mar 2017 09:01 by >> onp...@riseup.net>> : >> >> >>> On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, >>> awake...@tutanota.de>>> wrote: I point out your missteps in logic >>> >>> Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about? >>> you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of what you appeared to originally intend to say. >>> >>> What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part >>> of my message made you perceive that? >>> you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you. >>> >>> I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your >>> email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had >>> sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason. >>> >>> I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very >>> simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of >>> truth: >>> >>> 1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. >>> >>> 2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you >>> suggest. >>> >>> I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you >>> could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show >>> evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a >>> credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and >>> not, say, Tor Browser. >>> I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done. >>> >>> Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this >>> discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users' >>> privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how >>> convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat >>> has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in >>> attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor >>> Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show >>> that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free >>> to present it. >>> >>> In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are >>> the facts I can see: >>> >>> 1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates. >>> >>> 2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from >>> executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a >>> particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince >>> IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or >>> (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a >>> website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any >>> scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping >>> in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay, >>> "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot >>> reliably be protective ag-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
I'm afraid I won't argue with unsubstantiated speculation. However, if you would like to answer the questions I have asked, that will get us on track toward a proper debate based on evidence. -- Julie Marchant https://onpon4.github.io On Mar 24, 2017 6:41 PM, awake...@tutanota.de wrote: > > I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions with me and > being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am talking about, > while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded excuse to back up > your own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no mentioned facts or reasons" > without actually providing evidence that supports your claims against me even > though I'm the one always pointing out the truth because I want people to > wake up. > How convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages to > me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose chase back > and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before and I'll say it > again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my emails as spam. I > honestly do not enjoy our interactions and I politely request that you Julie, > personally mark me as spam once and for all. But I know you wont, because > that doesn't accomplish your goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody is going > to shut me up. I love helping people so please I kindly ask that you prove me > wrong and don't message me again. > > 24. Mar 2017 09:01 by onp...@riseup.net: > >> On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, awake...@tutanota.de wrote: >>> >>> I point out your missteps in logic >> >> >> Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about? >>> >>> you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of >>> what you appeared to originally intend to say. >> >> >> What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part >> of my message made you perceive that? >>> >>> you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts >>> and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you. >> >> >> I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your >> email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had >> sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason. >> >> I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very >> simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of >> truth: >> >> 1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. >> >> 2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you >> suggest. >> >> I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you >> could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show >> evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a >> credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and >> not, say, Tor Browser. >>> >>> I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the >>> important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, >>> and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but >>> I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done. >> >> >> Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this >> discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users' >> privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how >> convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat >> has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in >> attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor >> Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show >> that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free >> to present it. >> >> In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are >> the facts I can see: >> >> 1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates. >> >> 2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from >> executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a >> particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince >> IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or >> (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a >> website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any >> scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping >> in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay, >> "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot >> reliably be protective ag-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
"everyone = me?" me me or you me? please clarify. -but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow it is "it has many layers -- like an onion." Oh yea Donkeh lets hang out at mah Swamp woo lets get all Shrek in here (because that's a good explanation and suddenly makes TOR lighting fast, but I joke) the lack of functionality, "it's just a network. what extra functionality are you hoping to add when you build your own?" it's just a network? build your own? don't get mad at me but I can not in good faith believe you have ever used TOR before. TOR strongly advises against making any changes to your TOR browser because the browser benefits with some forms of security by all of them looking the same. TOR even tells you to not resize your window. as for the functionality I'm looking for? I'm looking for the ability to actively use the internet properly and do normal people internet things with actual functional speed so I'm not stuck by my computer waiting 10 hours for a page to load. and how many times it has been compromised. "[citation needed]" Please do a search "TOR compromised" "person sent to jail TOR" "TOR exit nodes compromised" and feel free to be surprised by the results. It's not a perfect system. how do you not know this? I'm curious and I ask this in a friendly way. I just can't believe it. thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done. "according to you, all browsers and operating systems feed in to the panopticon so what makes IceCat so special?" I did not say those words in that combination or order, and even in the correct order are taken out of context and that's a stretch. to make a simple comment on some of the things I said before, It's important to use a good browser on a good operating system because using a good browser on a bad operating system is the same if not worse (because of the added false sense of security) as using as bad browser on a bad operating system. it's like eating junk food every single day and then eating a salad and thinking you are safe or healthy. It's just not true. people who are healthy metaphorically speaking eat fruits and vegetables every day, and eat little to no junk food. I hope my example is understandable. 24. Mar 2017 10:38 by gdri...@gmail.com: > asleepyet wrote: > >> I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR > > everyone = me > >> but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow >> it is, > > it has many layers -- like an onion. > >> the lack of functionality, > > it's just a network. what extra functionality are you hoping to add when you > build your own? > >> and how many times it has been compromised. > > [citation needed] > >> thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat >> have done. >> > > according to you, all browsers and operating systems feed in to the > panopticon so what makes IceCat so special? >> > > >-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions with me and being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am talking about, while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded excuse to back up your own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no mentioned facts or reasons" without actually providing evidence that supports your claims against me even though I'm the one always pointing out the truth because I want people to wake up. How convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages to me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose chase back and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my emails as spam. I honestly do not enjoy our interactions and I politely request that you Julie, personally mark me as spam once and for all. But I know you wont, because that doesn't accomplish your goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody is going to shut me up. I love helping people so please I kindly ask that you prove me wrong and don't message me again. 24. Mar 2017 09:01 by onp...@riseup.net: > On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, > awake...@tutanota.de> wrote: >> I point out your missteps in logic > > Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about? > >> you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of >> what you appeared to originally intend to say. > > What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part > of my message made you perceive that? > >> you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts >> and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you. > > I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your > email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had > sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason. > > I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very > simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of > truth: > > 1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. > > 2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you > suggest. > > I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you > could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show > evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a > credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and > not, say, Tor Browser. > >> I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the >> important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, >> and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but >> I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done. > > Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this > discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users' > privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how > convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat > has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in > attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor > Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show > that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free > to present it. > > In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are > the facts I can see: > > 1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates. > > 2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from > executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a > particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince > IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or > (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a > website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any > scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping > in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay, > "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot > reliably be protective against any sort of malicious JavaScript code; > its only protective effect is "security through obscurity". > > 3. When using Tor, IceCat blocks all requests for things like images, > unlike Tor Browser. This makes it possible for any website to > distinguish between Tor Browser and IceCat simply by embedding an image > onto the Web page and seeing whether or not the image was sent at the > time the Web page was loaded. > > 4. Other than LibreJS, which (as I explained) can easily be subverted, > IceCat offers no protection against malicious scripts except for what is > built into Firefox already. In particular, NoScript is not included. > Even when it allows all scripts to execute, NoScript provides certain > security features, such a
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
asleepyet wrote: > I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR everyone = me > but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow it > is, it has many layers -- like an onion. > the lack of functionality, it's just a network. what extra functionality are you hoping to add when you build your own? > and how many times it has been compromised. [citation needed] > thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat > have done. according to you, all browsers and operating systems feed in to the panopticon so what makes IceCat so special? -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, awake...@tutanota.de wrote: > I point out your missteps in logic Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about? > you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of > what you appeared to originally intend to say. What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part of my message made you perceive that? > you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts > and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you. I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason. I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of truth: 1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. 2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you suggest. I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and not, say, Tor Browser. > I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the > important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, > and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but I'm > very proud of what the creators of icecat have done. Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users' privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free to present it. In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are the facts I can see: 1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates. 2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay, "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot reliably be protective against any sort of malicious JavaScript code; its only protective effect is "security through obscurity". 3. When using Tor, IceCat blocks all requests for things like images, unlike Tor Browser. This makes it possible for any website to distinguish between Tor Browser and IceCat simply by embedding an image onto the Web page and seeing whether or not the image was sent at the time the Web page was loaded. 4. Other than LibreJS, which (as I explained) can easily be subverted, IceCat offers no protection against malicious scripts except for what is built into Firefox already. In particular, NoScript is not included. Even when it allows all scripts to execute, NoScript provides certain security features, such as protection against XSS attacks, which Tor Browser benefits from. 5. IceCat and Tor Browser share the same upstream, Firefox ESR. This means that, all other factors being equal, they should share the same vulnerabilities. The least vulnerable of the two should be the one that gets updated most promptly and most frequently, and that is Tor Browser. Put together, all of these facts paint a picture that Tor Browser is not only more private and more secure than IceCat, but substantially so. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please show me what that evidence is. [1] https://onpon4.github.io/other/kill-js/ -- Julie Marchant https://onpon4.github.io Protect your emails with GnuPG: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
I keep trying to look but there's alot of trouble in the way. I personally consider it very unwise to put a smile on in this sort of moment and pretend everything is fine when there are clearly unresolved issues. turning away from the problem and allowing it to grow would be like ignoring the fact that IceCat isn't feeling good and could use a visit to the vet. poor thing. I hope we can all sail out of this thunderstorm safely. peace. 20. Mar 2017 11:57 by ph.scha...@gmail.com: > > Absolutely right. Everyone should calm down and look at the common > greater good. Thank you for your appreciative words. > > Oh, and to everyone who helped to develop Icecat and other open source > software: THANK YOU, YOU PEOPLE ARE AWESOME. > > > > > > > Am 20.03.17 um 16:13 schrieb > b...@shroggslodge.freeserve.co.uk> : > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Until now I've resisted on commenting on this >> little Icecat family fall-out between some of the >> family members :-) >> >> >> >> I can see some reason in all the >> points being made from all parties - some perhaps more >> plausible/evidential/or whatever, than others. >> >> >> For my two-penneth single point >> gut-feeling view (notjust for Icecat either), I would not >> expect to seecommunity contributed open-source etc effort >> todevelop/build for platforms and so forth where >>commercial gain/interest is involved (usually for a >> minority few too). I would expect it to be low onpriority if >> it was part of any work, unless there wassome mandated, >> agreed and valuable reason to. Yes Iknow, sometimes it >> helps to do so, but I'm not sure inthis case. >> >> >> >> I really appreciate all the >> clever people who work on Linuxand open-source, community >> inspired and driven softwareefforts (and in other projects too) >> and make those availablefor use - I'd be in a worse place >> without them and I cannotthank all those people enough...it >> warms the heart to seepeople coming together to achieve things >> in this manner. >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> Habs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 20 March 2017 at 02:22, Ian Dunn <>> du...@gnu.org>> > >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I see what you're saying, awakeyet. From a certain >>> perspective, you make perfect sense. Attempting to bog downthe >>> maintainer of a project like GNU IceCat to try and takeit down >>> is something I could see a competitor doing. Iwon't argue that >>> there are rotten people that do pull shady,petty tactics like >>> that to get rid of the competition. >>> >>> But there are also good people. People like Daniel, that >>> only wanted to see support for his OS. He wants to use GNU >>> IceCat, but he got attacked by people that laughed him outfor >>> not using GNU/Linux. There could be 100 reasons hecan't or >>> won't switch, and we should respect that. If wedon't show our >>> users respect, but instead assume thatperfectly honest people >>> are trying to troll or attack us,then we're going to lose >>> people. Not everyone is out to getsomeone else, although I >>> know it can feel that waysometimes. >>> >>> Everyone remember: We're all here because we want to see GNU >>> IceCat succeed. I've been watching the development for >>> years. I've seen two maintainers try and fail to keep upwith >>> Mozilla's development cycle, and now a third isstruggling to >>> keep up. That's why it's up to us to besupportive, not just of >>> him, but of each other. >>> >>> I know it's easy to label awakeyet as a conspiracy theorist >>>and move on without understanding his perspective, but we >>> should all keep in mind that he might be right. Andawakeyet, >>> you need to be willing to a
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying but it isn't as simple as need and availability with users and icecat. we are like the rebels in starwars. giant corporations and their own search engines and browsers outnumber us and icecat like 20 deathstars to an xwing and a few people who pay tickets to ride the star destroyers still want this little xwing to help them so they can be a rebel on an enemy battleship because it gives them a false sense of security on a level of which I have never experience before. by giving into the fear of offending others and going down the path of political correctness and by dedicating resources that we don't even have for our own ship we risk everything. there is only one Icecat. there are no other good browsers out there with the privacy and functionality that Icecat does. There could be 100 reasons a person who uses a closed source and totally "owned" corporate nightmare OS can't or won't switch, and we should respect that, but they undeniably have to respect the fact that we are in a technological survival situation. we are a desert nation and we only have so much water. if we give away water to anyone who threatens to feel "offended" we are endangering our very own survival in terms of the availability of IceCat to the thousands of users who use it properly on an open source free OS where it will actually do them any good at all, period. If we show every random stranger who demands respect respect while completely assuming that they are perfectly honest people who would never try to troll, attack, or manipulate us, then we're not going to lose people. we're going to lose IceCat. If people want respect they deserve to earn it by using an operating system that doesn't take years of developer blood sweat and tears and flush it right down the toilet by compromising the very privacy and security that was lovingly constructed piece by piece into IceCat in the first place. I don't care who gets offended when I say this, and I'm not attacking anyone at all, I'm telling the truth: There is NO excuse for anyone to allow themselves to be so ignorant that they would lull themselves into a false sense of security by using a good browser on a bad Operating System. They Don't get to complain, and they don't get to be offended when they are absolutely factually doing things the Wrong Way. not after the developers work so very hard for years, and then these people demand that they work harder and give them whatever they want on another anti-security themed operating system. "devs just drink more coffee, stay up later I don't care" I want people to be safe, and I want people to be intelligent. nothing makes me more sick and uncomfortable than watching people think and truly believe they are safe simply because they put a small bandage on a HUGE problem. the work required to make just one type of bandage is massive, and they want even more different bandages to satisfy their false peace of mind. it's inexcusable and I wont accept it. we can rainbow fish this all we want all day long, every day until we have nothing left for ourselves like a dry skeleton picked clean by vultures while throwing aside the very people who truly care about icecat. you and I and everyone else here that's a part of this project and community know it as a fact that if IceCat didn't exist the very same people would be throwing temper tantrums and parasitizing off of another attractive web browser with a vulnerable dev team and community, the fruits of their hard work ripe for the picking. "I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong here, but this argument is going to piss people off, and anger will only make it worse." I'm not arguing. I'm stating facts and I'm going to keep blowing the fog away to keep the truth exposed as long as I live. If I or another person feels angry than I'm proud of that. I'm proud that for once we as human beings are able to feel the right emotion for the right reason, and able to have a healthy reaction to an unhealthy world without someone telling us we are not allowed to feel that way. it is our right to feel angry and I wish nothing but the best for all of us in that we use this anger and frustration constructively to do a strong good honest job and ensuring the survival of IceCat. Unless we are interested in becoming like every other failed group or ideology throughout history that is flooded with people who are only interested in how it can benefit Only them, In a non-violent way, we must revolt against ignorance. "and get back to supporting the browser we all love." 19. Mar 2017 22:22 by du...@gnu.org: > > I see what you're saying, awakeyet. From a certain perspective, you make > perfect sense. Attempting to bog down the maintainer of a project like GNU > IceCat to try and take it down is something I could see a competitor doing. > I won't argue that there are rotten people that do pull shady, pe
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done. 19. Mar 2017 15:57 by gdri...@gmail.com: > On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:34 AM, awakeyet wrote: > > > > what browser may you suggest other security and privacy conscious users use > > in the place of IceCat > > there is a project that is even more privacy conscious... > > "Tor Browser lets you use Tor on Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux without needing > to install any software. It can run off a USB flash drive, comes with a > pre-configured web browser to protect your anonymity, and is self-contained > (portable)." > > "It prevents somebody watching your Internet connection from learning what > sites you visit, it prevents the sites you visit from learning your physical > location, and it lets you access sites which are blocked." > >-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
So others are allowed to make points, but if I dare make a point that threatens their logic, and pops their percieved bubble of safety, I'm suddenly a "classic troll". I mention gamergate as well as other things because they are related. I doesn't take much effort to understand how truly connected everything is. I would apologize to you against my better judgement to make you feel better but I'm afraid I can not admit guilt where there is none. It's sad these days that everyone gets offended at everything, and nobody can handle the fact that there are people in the world who disagree with them. think a different way and you are instantly labeled a troll. reminds me of a few failed governments in history and how they treated their citizens to be honest. I'm onwards and upwards in defiance of political correctness and anything that wants to hold back the truth. I'm going to say what's right, without fear. have a nice day. 19. Mar 2017 15:17 by melik...@melikamp.com: > On Sunday, March 19, 2017 19:34:28 > awake...@tutanota.de> wrote: >>> "Also, even the FSF supports building software for Windows." >> yes yes and linux has systemd. truly imperfect world we live in. > > awake...@tutanota.de> , julie is making a pertinent point: no one was arguing > with you in this forum for like 4 days now. You remark, on the other hand, is > a classic troll. Also your reference to gamergate. This list is, ostensibly, > for discussing issues with gnuzilla, such as bugs. A lot of the things you've > been saying in the last few days are completely, factually offtopic.-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
I find it very convenient that as soon as I point out your missteps in logic you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of what you appeared to originally intend to say. while you seem to want to disagree with what I say, you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you. If you would like a good conversation then please do stay consistent and stay clear and straight forward. 19. Mar 2017 15:04 by onp...@riseup.net: > On 03/19/2017 02:34 PM, > awake...@tutanota.de> wrote: >> If IceCat isn't important in the grande scheme of things, then what >> browser may you suggest other security and privacy conscious users use >> in the place of IceCat, god forbid it wasn't a choice anymore? > > I was talking about people who *don't* care about these issues, and > proprietary software developers. As in, IceCat is *tiny* compared to > e.g. Google Chrome or Safari. As in, it's ridiculous to think that any > of those companies would have any interest in spending money to... how > did you put it? "[G]ive them more work because they want them to fail." > >> there aren't many other actual good choices out >> there. > > For privacy and security? IceCat isn't even the best browser for that. > That would be the Tor Browser Bundle. Which, incidentally, probably has > a larger user base than IceCat. > >> I value critical thinking > > And yet you are not applying it. There is no reason anyone would be > motivated to make IceCat fail. > >> I could say the same thing about your emails but I try to be >> a nice person. > > No, you couldn't, at least not honestly. You sent *eight* emails in *one > hour*, without anyone replying, all on the same topic. This is spam. I > sent *one* email in response. This is not spam. > > -- > Julie Marchant > https://onpon4.github.io > > Protect your emails with GnuPG: > https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
