Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[David Hedlund]

Vote here: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?49616 (updated)



On 2016-11-16 11:46, Narcis Garcia wrote:

I believe that Icecat should have same derivative modifications as
TorWebbrowser, and then TorWebbrowser should use Icecat's code base.


El 14/11/16 a les 20:04, Daniel Quintiliani ha escrit:

Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?

1. Yes
2. No

I vote #1

--

-Dan Q

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org


--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org



--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[Narcis Garcia]

I believe that Icecat should have same derivative modifications as
TorWebbrowser, and then TorWebbrowser should use Icecat's code base.


El 14/11/16 a les 20:04, Daniel Quintiliani ha escrit:
> Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?
> 
> 1. Yes
> 2. No
> 
> I vote #1
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
> 

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[bch]

Hello all

I'm not 'voting' as I do not fully understand what is going on to cause all
the debate and argument.

I started using Icecat as I felt I had a noticeable performance improvement
over the over offerings.
Since then it has not updated much and appears to be well behind the
Firefox base at least.

Just in general to the recent discussions on "what happens to Icecat next
(if anything)"
I like to choose what add-ons I want (or want to 'turn on'). Having them
automatically built in does not seem 'correct'.

Indeed, I believe it should be possible to have a performant browser that
that is cleaned of all the crud (alleged spying, tracking, questionable
code, etc) other versions may introduce and be announced as such and
perhaps released with suggestions of approved/recommended addons to improve
security/privacy. Users may wish to employ there own solutions knowing they
have a great base browser that is doing just what it should and nothing
more.

I have read that some people feel that users might not be competent enough
to know what to 'add-on' for protection and therefore feel it ought to be
built in as such. I do not subscribe to this and believe most people going
down the linux route at least (setting it up, installing, configuring etc)
will have a reasonable idea of security...especially if recommendations of
what people can do comes with it.

Just my two-penneth.

Thank you for Icecat.


Regards
Habs



On 15 November 2016 at 10:26, ng0  wrote:

> ng0  writes:
>
> > "Daniel Quintiliani"  writes:
> >
> >> Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?
> >>
> >> 1. Yes
> >> 2. No
> >>
> >> I vote #1
> >
> > Assuming that you mean torbrowser code, where most of it is being
> > upstreamed anyway, I vote #1
>
> I change my vote to something between #1 and #2, I can't be
> accurate at the moment.
> In general it would not matter which browser derivation icecat
> will be based on as long as more eyes are looking at its
> code. Talk is cheap action is better, but I have no time to share
> for icecat.
> No matter which code base you choose, it would be a great
> enhancement if the fingerprinting(? html5 canvas? something like
> that) addon / code would be added to icecat.
>
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[ng0]

ng0  writes:

> "Daniel Quintiliani"  writes:
>
>> Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?
>>
>> 1. Yes
>> 2. No
>>
>> I vote #1
>
> Assuming that you mean torbrowser code, where most of it is being
> upstreamed anyway, I vote #1

I change my vote to something between #1 and #2, I can't be
accurate at the moment.
In general it would not matter which browser derivation icecat
will be based on as long as more eyes are looking at its
code. Talk is cheap action is better, but I have no time to share
for icecat.
No matter which code base you choose, it would be a great
enhancement if the fingerprinting(? html5 canvas? something like
that) addon / code would be added to icecat.

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[Gary]

I don't know about the Windows and macOS ports but the Linux version of
Icecat could be derived from the Trisquel abrowser source if they are kind
enough to allow and encourage us to do so. My comments here should in no
way be considered a judgement of either of these ambitious and much needed
projects since I understand and greatly appreciate the time investment it
takes to keep such efforts alive and active. That said here are a few ways
I can see that Icecat may still differentiate itself from abrowser...


1. Provide Mac, Windows, and Android ports. For what should be obvious
reasons will likely never have any interest in building these themselves.

2. Retain current fingerprinting countermeasures (I don't know what these
are -- I'm just looking at features listed on the Icecat project page [A]).

3. Switch to uBlock Origin[B] as the frontline method for blacklisting
unwanted content. When I install this plugin I generally select a handful
of lists in addition to the defaults. It may be easier to just document
this well if it's non-trivial to pre-select the defaults on install.

4. Implement several of the about:config changes recommended in Trisquel's
documentation[C]. Some of these are anti-malware services but uBlock has
several options that can be aggregated to serve the same purpose using
crowd sourced data instead of vendor sourced data.

5. Continue to maintain Icecat's list of addons[D] or combine efforts with
Trisquel's[E] since it appears to be yet another duplication of efforts.

6. Flesh out Icecat's current documentation[F] which -- despite being
somewhat sparse by some standards -- is still considerably more than what
Trisquel has listed for abrowser[G].

7. Consider switching to a default privacy focused search engine such as
Ixquick[H].

8. Consider if the current list of default plugins[A] is still relevant.
The call for bringing back Firefox's cookie management feature, for
example, may be mitigated by using a combination of plugins such as uBlock
Origin and Privacy Badger[I]. If not, then perhaps there's a suitable free
plugin that achieves similar functionality without being an administrative
burden on the average user.




A. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla
B. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode
C.
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/tweak-your-browser-enhance-security-and-privacy
D. http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat/
E. https://trisquel.info/en/browser
F. https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:IceCat/
G. https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/abrowser-help
H. https://www.ixquick.com/eng/privacy-policy.html
I. https://github.com/EFForg/privacybadgerfirefox
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[Mart Rootamm]

Voting against: #2 and No, that is — per arguments by Gary Driggs.

Additional voting is here:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?49604

The Tor Browser is its own thing, and its code base seems to have diverged,
though most of it is based on upstream Firefox ESR.

If IceCat were based on Tor Browser code, then it would be just a copy of
the same, and that's pointless, when there's really a need for a
general-purpose browser — albeit with greater privacy features than current
Firefox.

-M.

2016-11-15 0:05 GMT+02:00 Gary Driggs :

> I see this project having more in common with the Trisquel browser project
> than TOR browser. I haven't seen anyone list the pros or cons so I'll have
> to vote against if it's just arbitrary.
>
>
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>
>
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[Gary Driggs]

I see this project having more in common with the Trisquel browser project than 
TOR browser. I haven't seen anyone list the pros or cons so I'll have to vote 
against if it's just arbitrary.
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org

Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [VOTE] Tor code base

[ng0]

"Daniel Quintiliani"  writes:

> Should we use the Tor code as a basis for Icecat?
>
> 1. Yes
> 2. No
>
> I vote #1

Assuming that you mean torbrowser code, where most of it is being
upstreamed anyway, I vote #1

--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org