Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? No, Firefox might very well end up opening a window in non-incognito mode. Surely such bug would be fixed before the beta turns into final? I have no idea, but it does exactly the above with profiles sometimes iirc. I know we had loads of trouble with the profile management back when we had the FireFox profile, but let's not sentence the incognito mode before it is even released. - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? No, Firefox might very well end up opening a window in non-incognito mode. Surely such bug would be fixed before the beta turns into final? - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of connections from the browser to the node. Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris, and then inlines them. Even if Freenet doesn't want to use the library, inlining images as Data URIs may improve load times. Just a thought. -CPD http://ajaxian.com/archives/digg-shows-multipart-xmlhttprequest-prototype ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Thursday 21 May 2009 18:54:38 Colin Davis wrote: As an aside, Matthew had asked in the past about reducing the number of connections from the browser to the node. Digg's new library may be able to assist- It breaks images into data uris, and then inlines them. Even if Freenet doesn't want to use the library, inlining images as Data URIs may improve load times. Just a thought. -CPD Well it's not the stuff that we have already fetched that slows things down, it's the images we have to wait for. http://ajaxian.com/archives/digg-shows-multipart-xmlhttprequest-prototype signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? No, Firefox might very well end up opening a window in non-incognito mode. Surely such bug would be fixed before the beta turns into final? I have no idea, but it does exactly the above with profiles sometimes iirc. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:41:00 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already for the individual browsers. We can also check the version info of .exes as an alternative (most Windows applications are compiled with various static info like version and author). The Windows launcher is already running Chrome with a command line argument making it start in privacy mode btw. You should prioritise Chrome with privacy mode over Firefox without it. Agreed: https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3118. I thought you had already done this? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? No, Firefox might very well end up opening a window in non-incognito mode. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Colin Davis skrev: We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE warning, IIRC. If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it on, and they can turn it off. I agree. We could include a first-time dismissable infobox informing the user that his browser was started in incognito mode and what that means for his privacy. If the user decides then to turns it off afterwards, we really should assume that he knows what he is doing (or in other words: His own responsibility). Maybe in the future, browsers will support that we simply submit a domain that always should be browsed in incognito mode. But for now, the above seems like enough petting to me too. - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I haven't tried out the beta yet, so I don't know how FireFox will handle incognito mode. Chrome handled it perfectly during my test session. Even with a non-private window open, launching a new chrome with the -incognito switch and the fproxy URL correctly made chrome open it in a new, private tab. We shouldn't need to specify a specific profile as we did when we installed our own... - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already for the individual browsers. We can also check the version info of .exes as an alternative (most Windows applications are compiled with various static info like version and author). The Windows launcher is already running Chrome with a command line argument making it start in privacy mode btw. You should prioritise Chrome with privacy mode over Firefox without it. Agreed: https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3118. - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Colin Davis skrev: As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse Freenet? (#3104) Most major browsers either have or are about to include privacy mode which we ought to use instead. Maintaining 2 browser installations is a hell for non-geeks as well. We would have to reliably detect it. Possible? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already for the individual browsers. We can also check the version info of .exes as an alternative (most Windows applications are compiled with various static info like version and author). The Windows launcher is already running Chrome with a command line argument making it start in privacy mode btw. I'm not entirely sure how the launch part is handled best on Linux (I'll leave that to you Linux guys). - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Colin Davis skrev: The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect trick. If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode. http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/ -CPD It wouldn't be a bad idea to do such a check automatically! And if failing, warn the user and recommend him to switch to incognito mode (or a browser which supports it). - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:24:53 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect trick. If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode. http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/ -CPD It wouldn't be a bad idea to do such a check automatically! And if failing, warn the user and recommend him to switch to incognito mode (or a browser which supports it). Except that there isn't a released version of Firefox that supports it yet. My main concern is that they may switch incognito mode off: when do we check, exactly? I'm assuming that once you have switched privacy mode off, websites can't probe links you've visited when it was enabled. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE warning, IIRC. If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it on, and they can turn it off. I'm assuming that once you have switched privacy mode off, websites can't probe links you've visited when it was enabled This is correct. Weren't we going to append random characters to avoid this anyway, or was there a reason that I've forgotten why that would fail? -CPD ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Friday 15 May 2009 19:33:16 Colin Davis wrote: We could probe on the main fproxy page, in the same place we have the IE warning, IIRC. If they switch it off after that, it's their business; They turned it on, and they can turn it off. I'm assuming that once you have switched privacy mode off, websites can't probe links you've visited when it was enabled This is correct. Weren't we going to append random characters to avoid this anyway, or was there a reason that I've forgotten why that would fail? -CPD High maintenance cost, likelihood of users posting cloaked URLs accidentally on Freenet and then their being probeable and traceable back to a specific identity, etc. Of course even with a separate browser, probing ports is possible. :| signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:21:12 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse Freenet? (#3104) Most major browsers either have or are about to include privacy mode which we ought to use instead. Maintaining 2 browser installations is a hell for non-geeks as well. We would have to reliably detect it. Possible? Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already for the individual browsers. We can also check the version info of .exes as an alternative (most Windows applications are compiled with various static info like version and author). The Windows launcher is already running Chrome with a command line argument making it start in privacy mode btw. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I'm not entirely sure how the launch part is handled best on Linux (I'll leave that to you Linux guys). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:21:12 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse Freenet? (#3104) Most major browsers either have or are about to include privacy mode which we ought to use instead. Maintaining 2 browser installations is a hell for non-geeks as well. We would have to reliably detect it. Possible? Detecting the version of an installed application in the launcher (at least in Windows) shouldn't be a problem. It will most likely be registered in the registry next to the .exe path we are checking already for the individual browsers. We can also check the version info of .exes as an alternative (most Windows applications are compiled with various static info like version and author). The Windows launcher is already running Chrome with a command line argument making it start in privacy mode btw. You should prioritise Chrome with privacy mode over Firefox without it. I'm not entirely sure how the launch part is handled best on Linux (I'll leave that to you Linux guys). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse Freenet? (#3104) Most major browsers either have or are about to include privacy mode which we ought to use instead. Maintaining 2 browser installations is a hell for non-geeks as well. We would have to reliably detect it. Possible? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
The most reliable way to detect incognito mode is to use the CSS detect trick. If we can detect their CSS links followed, they are not in privacy mode. http://crypto.stanford.edu/~collinj/research/incognito/ -CPD Matthew Toseland wrote: On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:40:31 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: Related idea: We should maybe tell the user in the installer that they should use a separate browser for Freenet, rather than in the wizard? And then let them choose one, and then use it when they click on the icon to browse Freenet? (#3104) Most major browsers either have or are about to include privacy mode which we ought to use instead. Maintaining 2 browser installations is a hell for non-geeks as well. We would have to reliably detect it. Possible? ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
