On 10/11/2017 03:39 PM, dev wrote:
On 10/11/2017 12:26 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
On 26.09.2017 09:43, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
They haven't put the users at #1 for a long time, why do you think
that firefox is still very vulnerable to browser fingerprinting? that
is by design
On 10/11/2017 12:26 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 26.09.2017 09:43, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
>
>> They haven't put the users at #1 for a long time, why do you think
>> that firefox is still very vulnerable to browser fingerprinting? that
>> is by design.
>
> Yes, and its gettin
On 26.09.2017 09:43, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
They haven't put the users at #1 for a long time, why do you think that
firefox is still very vulnerable to browser fingerprinting? that is by
design.
Yes, and its getting worse: now they want to include cliqz - a spyware
from Burda - a major propag
Quoting taii...@gmx.com (taii...@gmx.com):
> Yeah just like I have said before this is the only logical reason as
> to why browser fingerprinting is still so easy to perform even after
> years of the vendors knowing about it.
Like many questions of interest, that is actually complicated.
Behind
On 09/28/2017 05:50 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
at the end of the day Mozilla Corp. won't ship software whose _default
configuration_ runs contrary to the
perceived interests of their major funders.
Yeah just like I have said before this is the only logical reason as to
why browser fingerprinting is
Quoting dev (devua...@gmail.com):
> So, this[1]? I've honestly never bothered to look until you
> mentioned it.
Primarily that, yes. Mozilla Corp. are highly dependent on contractual
funding from all of those firms listed, but IIRC the biggest share is
from Google, Inc.
So, when I've given publ
On 09/26/2017 10:25 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Haven't you ever stopped to consider where Mozilla, Inc.'s revenue
> stream comes from? Hint: not you. Web browser users are not the
> company's customers. Who they respect, and who they serve, follows the
> money.
So, this[1]? I've honestly never
Le 28/09/2017 à 08:31, Didier Kryn a écrit :
I've just compiled Palemoon following the instructions of Jaromil
but with a slightly different configuration.
I needed to install libgtk2.0-dev, libglib2.0-dev, autoconf2.13 and
yasm. There must be some magic in version 2.13 of autoconf sin
Le 28/09/2017 à 00:56, hal a écrit :
All,
Thanks for all the great input. Happy to report I've ditched Chrom* in favor
of Palemoon. Noscript and UBlock Origin plugins install fine.
Youtube and ALSA working well. Thanks for all the tips!
___
Dng mailing
All,
Thanks for all the great input. Happy to report I've ditched Chrom* in favor
of Palemoon. Noscript and UBlock Origin plugins install fine.
Youtube and ALSA working well. Thanks for all the tips!
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailin
Quoting taii...@gmx.com (taii...@gmx.com):
> Yeah I am very bothered at mozilla's, and a variety of other
> organizations choices that don't respect the end users and
> developers.
> Doing something that alienates the majority of your users for
> "progress" doesn't seem like a good idea, only a no
On 09/19/2017 10:46 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:38:24AM -0500, dev wrote:
Mozilla got a new bedmate named PulseAudio.
Looks like another Smooth Move by Mozilla that will end up costing them
market share. I don't like Chrome, but basically forced to choose between
Potte
On 170924-15:43-0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Miroslav Rovis (miro.ro...@croatiafidelis.hr):
>
> > > Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
> > > >
> > > > On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > ...
> > > If interested in this area of law, see: 'Trademark Law' on
> > > http://linuxmafia.com
On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:48:05 +, Miroslav wrote in message
<20170924124805.rsugrua5j4n7bgo7@gdOv>:
> It's not about trust, but expert testimony or content advanced user
> numbers (of which there are some in both Gentoo and Devuan/Debian) or
> more, of which there is substantial amount for Pale
On 09/24/2017 08:48 AM, Miroslav Rovis wrote:
> On 170924-08:36-0400, zap wrote:
> ...
> Zap, look at the work that I'd need to do if I went the Waterfox way:
Hmm... yes I really don't know. Not that it matters anyways, waterfox
doesn't need to be added to the repo to be used in devuan. I have s
Quoting Miroslav Rovis (miro.ro...@croatiafidelis.hr):
> > Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
> > >
> > > On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> ...
> > If interested in this area of law, see: 'Trademark Law' on
> > http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/
> >
> > (I was one of the edito
On 170924-08:36-0400, zap wrote:
>
...
Zap, look at the work that I'd need to do if I went the Waterfox way:
> > But only if more people from Devuan or Debian created a traction would I be
> > more willing to give it a real try (would be lots of compiling, as in my
> Let me kindly tell you upfront, you're not more people, only a single
> individual :-) ... I had already looked up Waterfox previously when you told
> me
> about it.
>
> But only if more people from Devuan or Debian created a traction would I be
> more willing to give it a real try (would be lo
On 170923-14:28-0400, zap wrote:
>
> > (
> > And also, let's see if Enrico Weigelt's Librezilla takes off... Or, somebody
> > proove that Waterfox is indeed safer and more honest than Palemoon... More
> > people's testimonies on the latter would be needed, for me, to reconsider
> > Waterfox.
> > )
Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
>
> On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
> >
> >> Also, palemoon has restrictions on its software which waterfox does not.
> >> I believe its on its binaries or executables? I think?
> > I've just looked and found no evi
On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
>
>> Also, palemoon has restrictions on its software which waterfox does not.
>> I believe its on its binaries or executables? I think?
> I've just looked and found no evidence of this.
>
https://www.palemoon.org/redist
Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
> Also, palemoon has restrictions on its software which waterfox does not.
> I believe its on its binaries or executables? I think?
I've just looked and found no evidence of this.
--
Rick Moen "Due to circumstances beyond your control,
r...@linux
> (
> And also, let's see if Enrico Weigelt's Librezilla takes off... Or, somebody
> proove that Waterfox is indeed safer and more honest than Palemoon... More
> people's testimonies on the latter would be needed, for me, to reconsider
> Waterfox.
> )
Well, let's see where do I start, about:config
On 170920-21:21+0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:47:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
...
> > > You don't want that pile of spyware, it lacks any basic privacy extensions
> > > Firefox has.
+1
> > At _least_ try Chromium before ad
Le 22/09/2017 à 00:16, Joel Roth a écrit :
My point is that if there is no pulseaudio server,
skypeforlinux sends sound to the ALSA device, so that one
needs to install neither pulseaudio nor apulse to
use skype on devuan jessie (at least for the version
of skype I downloaded.)
OK. Thanks,
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 21.09.2017 19:49, Joel Roth wrote:
> >
> >That's odd. I installed the skypeforlinux.deb file on deuvan jessie without
> >the pulseaudio server.
>
> yes, it depends on pa library, but not the service - which is correct,
> as the server could be remote.
On 21.09.2017 19:49, Joel Roth wrote:
That's odd. I installed the skypeforlinux.deb file on deuvan jessie without
the pulseaudio server.
yes, it depends on pa library, but not the service - which is correct,
as the server could be remote.
--mtx
___
Didier Kryn wrote:
> I built Apulse on a Devuan-Jessie x86_64 without Pulseaudio. This was
> for Skype to install without error.
That's odd. I installed the skypeforlinux.deb file on deuvan jessie without
the pulseaudio server.
I do have some pulse audio libraries:
libpulse-dev:amd64 5.0-1
Le 21/09/2017 à 11:49, Didier Kryn a écrit :
The preferred browser on the two machines is Palemoon, installed
from some Suze repository. There is also Firefox installed and it
works with Alsa only, since it is always launched from the standard
.desktop launcher. Maybe I should check if the
Le 20/09/2017 à 17:10, dev a écrit :
On 09/20/2017 01:30 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Anyone have it working on Devuan and Firefox 55.0.3 64bit ?
I built it on Devuan Jessie without any glitch and Skype seems happy
with it.
Oh! I did not see this earlier. how are you launching firefox?
Do
Am 2017-09-20 22:03, schrieb zap:
Noscript is not on chromium or google chrome
for an obvious reason.
Noscript is the reason I will always use waterfox or a modified firefox
over anything else.
There is ScriptSafe for Chrome/Chromium which is basically the same as
Noscript.
Jochen
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:30:21PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:42:18 -0500, dev wrote in message
> :
>
> >
> >
> > On 09/20/2017 01:47 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At _least_ try Chromium before adopting a proprietary browser
> > > (Chrome). I don't know why so m
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:42:18 -0500, dev wrote in message
:
>
>
> On 09/20/2017 01:47 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>
>
> > At _least_ try Chromium before adopting a proprietary browser
> > (Chrome). I don't know why so many Linux users think _only_ of the
> > proprietary Google Chrome Web browser and
Quoting dev (devua...@gmail.com):
> Because the last time I tried Chromium its functionality was about on
> par with Konquerer's and I wrote it off. Perhaps it's matured nicely?
Criteria and opinions differ, of course, but I'd say it's at least worth
your time to recheck.
On 09/20/2017 01:47 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> At _least_ try Chromium before adopting a proprietary browser (Chrome).
> I don't know why so many Linux users think _only_ of the proprietary
> Google Chrome Web browser and not the open source Chromium browser of
> which Google Chrome is an odd and u
Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):
> I would agree adblock is much more memory intensive and ethically unsound.
ABP's 'Acceptable Ads' whitelisting is pretty questionable. OTOH, it's
openly documented (e.g., https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads) and
easy to revert. Just uncheck the 'Allow no
Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
> Most people seem to be using these two names interchangeably, even though,
> as you rightfully point, they do differ. I did not go into a tangent of
> correcting this as it was not relevant to bashing PulseAudio.
'Ah, the rare valid point', as Josh
> Huh? I think uBlock Origin is superior to Adblock in every aspect.
>
> Thanks,
I would agree adblock is much more memory intensive and ethically unsound.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Adam Borowski - 20.09.17, 21:21:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:47:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
[…]
> But, chromium as in Debian/Devuan is not good either:
> https://bugs.debian.org/792580 claims it phones home even in "incognito"
> mode -- and not jus
> All web browsers suck, and take turns at being the champions of
> suckatude. For the last three months, Chromium has sucked the least for
> me. I felt guilty because it was a Google product, but Rick has a
> point: ChromIUM is a free software product.
>
> If you use Google maps (I unfortunately
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:47:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
>
> > > I guess I am switching to Chrome. Another sad day for FOSS.
> >
> > You don't want that pile of spyware, it lacks any basic privacy extensions
> > Firefox has.
>
> At _least_ try Chr
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:47:05 -0700
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
>
> > > I guess I am switching to Chrome. Another sad day for FOSS.
> >
> > You don't want that pile of spyware, it lacks any basic privacy
> > extensions Firefox has.
>
> At _least_ try Chro
Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
> > I guess I am switching to Chrome. Another sad day for FOSS.
>
> You don't want that pile of spyware, it lacks any basic privacy extensions
> Firefox has.
At _least_ try Chromium before adopting a proprietary browser (Chrome).
I don't know why so m
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 09:59:10AM -0500, dev wrote:
> IIRC Jack, ALSA and Pulseaudio are three completely different software
> stacks. Firefox, as compiled from mozilla, will only work with
> Pulseaudio. Their official reasoning[1] was:
>
> "Make Pulse Audio a hard dependency on Linux so that w
On 09/20/2017 04:47 AM, Rob van der Putten wrote:
>>
>> Anyone have it working on Devuan and Firefox 55.0.3 64bit ?
>
> How about FF and Jackd?
> I don't use Jack myself, but a lot people do.
IIRC Jack, ALSA and Pulseaudio are three completely different software
stacks. Firefox, as compiled fr
Hi there
On 18/09/17 22:35, dev wrote:
Anyone know if there is an Apulse package for Devuan? I thought I had it
working a couple months back but now, on a different machine, I
cannot find the Apulse package. I don't remember how I got it working.
Checking google of course brings up the git r
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:46:46 +0200, Adam wrote in message
<20170919144646.5hsbzypbzpuu7...@angband.pl>:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:38:24AM -0500, dev wrote:
> > Mozilla got a new bedmate named PulseAudio.
> >
> > Looks like another Smooth Move by Mozilla that will end up costing
> > them marke
On 19.09.2017 16:46, Adam Borowski wrote:
Too bad, Firefox is the only somewhat usable browser. With enough
extensions (hello 57...) it's possible to beat some basic security into it,
while Chromium has built-in spyware even in that "incognito mode" snake oil
that can't be disabled by extension
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:38:24AM -0500, dev wrote:
> Mozilla got a new bedmate named PulseAudio.
>
> Looks like another Smooth Move by Mozilla that will end up costing them
> market share. I don't like Chrome, but basically forced to choose between
> Pottering or Google at this point :/
You me
On 09/18/2017 03:54 PM, Joel Roth wrote:
> Does FF 55 not support ALSA OOTB?
AFAIK, Mozilla got a new bedmate named PulseAudio.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/03/firefox-52-no-sound-pulseaudio-alsa-linux
Apulse used to work but now Firefox has some weird sandbox thing
causing permissions issu
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:35:12PM -0500, dev wrote:
> Anyone know if there is an Apulse package for Devuan? I thought I had it
> working a couple months back but now, on a different machine, I
> cannot find the Apulse package. I don't remember how I got it working.
>
> Checking google of c
51 matches
Mail list logo