And that removes Intel ME and proprietary firmware? Or Spectre?
You see - you are still thinking in terms of *I* and *me* although I
explained that on the other side of the wire there are millions affected by
those systems. It is beyond your resources, beyond your little libre system.
I
> This thread will go off the rails again if we discuss anything other than
web browsers here.
Agreed. Next time anyone mentions anything about "but this is not free" I
won't answer, so that I don't get accused of "tactics". Then you can tell the
other person to stay on topic. :)
> Can
I need to learn how to upload/commit changes and document everything
properly.
I also need to find out a proper format for the matrix for easy visualization
and review. Perhaps a simple spreadsheet in LibreOffice will do for
import/export to CSV which a script can handle further. If you
Heather, I am glad to see you are not just a mechanical being using a
keyboard and it is really good that you are critical. But perhaps it would be
better not to turn it into some drama. I have never felt abused by your words
or anything like that, so there is no need to torture yourself
> So I probably shouldn't say that I don't either, but will you tell me how
when you figure it out?
I think it should be possible to create filter based on mail headers (which
contain info about the sending server, i.e. you can identify if it is Gmail).
> How are we doing so far?
One of
Thanks for the links.
In case you (or anyone else) have misunderstood: I am not trying to replace
the 4 so called freedoms - neither lightly, nor in any other way. They
obviously have their place and value. What I am saying is:
1. I question and am quite reluctant to the usage of the word freedom for
something
I am on openSUSE and it is not on their repos. No idea what to do with a .deb
package and I don't find anything about how to compile that in a custom
directory (without having to install it in system-wide directories etc). I
was hoping to be able to download a binary which I can simply
Thanks. The output looks better now.
> I added two comments. The script is like 20 lines long. There is not much
to refactor.
I can look into that myself.
> I will not write any PHP
No need to. I can do it if/when necessary.
BTW another thing about IceCat:
While trying to
Yes. That's why the so called lightweight browsers may not have any
significant benefit. In fact their limitations may be more significant than
their lightness.
Resources are always scarce (limited) and should be used responsibly.
You need free RAM for handling new processes and peak loads.
RAM is not sequential in the sense that it is like a rewinding tape but: you
can't pass the whole RAM through the CPU in a single CPU clock. There is the
> They are always limited. They are not always scarce.
Scarce means restricted in quantity. Of course they are always scarce, you
don't have unrestricted amount of anything. Once again you are arguing for
the sake of it.
The space-time trade-off has absolutely nothing to do with where all
Now you can type another 50 pages of argumentation that the dictionary of
your choice is the ultimate source of truth, how wrong everyone else is and
that this is very related to lightweight browsers.
> The obvious thing to do is that, you must allocate no more RAM than you
really need, and leave the rest (deciding what to do with free RAM) to the
kernel.
Glad to see that at least 1 person understands what was saying.
Thanks but I automation like this (based on ">50%" or similar) seems
dangerous to me. These are important settings and my plan is to give the user
the ability to control what he sets, not some automatic script.
> By the way, all the software I write, including the two scripts in this
> The point is that if you can spare RAM, ideally, you should be using all of
it. In a perfect world, the programs you're running would use every byte of
RAM available and then release it to new programs as they launch. We of
course don't live in a perfect world, so some inefficiency (i.e.
Arguing with fruits is a waste of time.
> Btw I am wondering: how come we need a stupid addon to make it so we are
automatically directed to the encrypted version of a website? Isn't that a
necessity? Don't you think Mouzzilla should make such behavior the default
feature?
Mozilla supports HSTS preload.
It's worse than I thought.
There are surveillance cameras even when you walk outdoors or drive your car.
There are also satellites which take pictures from above all the time and
send it to the governments. Is the solution to hide?
Modifying one's behavior because of all that will not change anything, it
will even
I don't know what to say. Maybe we should upload this to Mozilla each time
they mention "privacy respect".
> I have not read the idea of panopticon.
Do it.
> Are you suggesting to hide in plain sight idea?
I am not suggesting anything along the lines of "do this" or "don't do that".
It is important to see things for oneself and from that comes clarity and
right action.
> So I convinced them
I don't think it is very sane to turn oneself into a clown or damage one's
vision with deliberate obstructions. This won't remove mass surveillance.
Remember that when you send an email the chance that on the other side of the
wire there is a PRISMed system (Gmail, Yahoo etc) is huge.
Did
> Why not have a try ?
Because it is stupid and futile.
You see - all this pattern of thinking about the ultimate entertainment,
security through isolation, being a king etc. is the root of the problems we
are facing. Yet man thinks he can escape from all this with more
entertainment and
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-high-on-your-own-supply-why-social-media-bosses-dont-use-social-media
It is important to note that there is a limit. There is no way to have low
CPU and low memory usage at the same time. Usually more memory is used to
reduce the computational overhead (example: storing pre-calculated data in
cache, so that it is not calculated again and again) or you can save
> Trying to produce a secure and privacy respecting browser out of an
opposite one (and an obese one in that) is not very good strategy IMHO.
What do you suggest? I have tried pretty much everything and I am running out
of options. If it was within my abilities I would write another browser.
> No, if you're not swapping, there's no performance loss.
You are wrong. If you constantly allocate and deallocate huge amounts of
memory this is an overhead. So caching in RAM is not a performance benefit
per se.
> There is zero benefit to having RAM free that you're not using.
Starting
I think one of the biggest problems is that the web standards are influenced
to a great degree by the tech giants (Google, Mozilla) and this makes it hard
for smaller projects to catch up as they don't have the same human power.
Things have become so complex in the last 10 years that it is
And not forgetting that security is a much bigger thing than just SSL.
Well, it is not the only way. It is possible to use RAM inefficiently without
swapping. There are also programs which don't free up memory properly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_browsers
FWIW Facebook is not less proprietary than Palemoon (just saying).
> At least that particular processor is resistant to the meltdown/spectre bs
Only according to the words ARM. (just saying)
After some recent feedback from pyllyuko's project it seems this whole thing
is very overwhelming. There are lots of undocumented variables for which they
seem to dig in bug reports etc. Even if I succeed to make something I
definitely won't be able to keep up to date such huge amount of
I am not saying it is impossible. It just needs huge amount of long term
work. Imagine just the JS module...
> I don't know if it makes much sense. Just brainstorming.
It makes a lot of sense but such a process won't resolve the root issues at
firmware/hardware level, so it won't ensure
I would like to hear more of your thoughts in the other thread which I opened
some time ago:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/freedom-security-technology-what-can-we-do
Let's leave this one for browsers, so that we don't make it a burden for
others :)
onpon4:
The only way reducing RAM consumption will ever help performance is if you're
using so much RAM that it's going into swap, and very few people have so
little RAM that that's going to happen.
heyjoe:
Well, it is not the only way. It is possible to use RAM inefficiently without
"Meditate on this I will"
:)
> Install icecat and linux-libre's RPM, and you're good to go!
IceCat seems to be just a rebranded Firefox inheriting all the FF's privacy
issues, so I wouldn't say it is a "good to go" thing without meticulous fine
tuning:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/web-browser?page=4#comment-127390
> I'm using your user.js and it works beautifully
I will be working to improve it further after more meticulous testing. Then
perhaps it would make sense to reopen the repo on GitHub. (not a promise
though, so don't hold your breath)
> So you completely ignored the fact that NOT attaching a license to a piece
of software is immediately making it non-free?
Damn. Then I ran the first shared bash script, so I immediately committed a
crime. Take me to court for breaking the international copyright law. I am
also reading
Well, I made a copy of it, so that I can run it. I didn't run it on the web
page. So I deserve to be stoned.
BTW I wasn't expecting clarifications although I appreciate your effort to
bring the thread out of the totally ridiculous direction it took. :) Just
stone me and let's finish with
.
Disabled Adblock and deleted the adblock subdirectory from profile. On
startup there are no packets. The sending of packets on exit to the currently
opened site still persists though.
Why should HTTP make hand shakes or keep open connections after the
robots.txt has been downloaded? And what would be the exact mechanism (and
purpose) for doing anything like that?
epiphany
---
Startup: multiple connections to filter20.adblockplus.org
Second startup: zero packets
Open preferences - zero packets (disable plugins)
Browse to https://fsf.org/robots.txt - no 3rd party connections
No setting to disable JS
Panopticlick score: 20.14 bits
links
---
Same result as elinks but with one difference:
Exiting causes some additional packets to be sent to the host of the the
currently opened URL
QupZilla
---
Startup: multiple connections to filter37.adblockplus.org
Open preferences - zero packets but when I clicked on "Tabs" section more
packets to filter37.adblockplus.org were sent
Disable: JS, pepper plugins (flash) (strange there is an option because such
package is not
elinks
---
Startup - zero packets
Open options - zero packets
Browse to https://fsf.org/robots.txt - no 3rd party connections
Panopticlick score: 20.14 bits
So far there is not a single post in this thread in which you talk about web
browsers. Yet you tell me I talk back for the sake of it.
So far I have always thought that once the file is loaded, there is no need
to keep any connections open or to send packets in order to close them. In
fact it seemed to me logical that once the document is loaded, this
"handshake closing packets" (or whatever the proper technical term is)
> There is sense: the telemetry component of Firefox sends anonimized data
that help Firefox's development, safe search warns about phishing and
malware, etc.
> "Different views than yours" is what you call "nonsense".
No. It is not "my view" vs another. It is contradiction of facts with
I still wish I could test Abrowser without having to install the whole
Trisquel.
Thanks.
Here is a test using the user.js which I attached in a previous comment and
the one from the ghacks project:
[/tmp/download]: ./mb user.js ghacks.js > out.txt && head -n 20 out.txt &&
tail -n 20 out.txt
# key user.js ghacks.js
accessibility.force_disabledundef 1
Visualization is easy. Extracting/storing/manipulating/versioning the data is
the challenge.
First I need to find a way to extract all the existing variables and their
values from each FF fork and from the different user.js projects. Storing all
that may require more than 2 dimensions for
Which should not be like that in a privacy respecting system :)
It is possible to optimize performance through about:config settings (turn of
disk cache, tune mem cache size and others).
You are missing the point of the question. Forget about Palemoon, FSF or laws
for the moment and let's look at this:
If one has no security, one cannot function sanely (one becomes neurotic
etc). So we as living entities need security at all levels.
Suppose there is a system
> But you can still have your email program filter out all @gmail addresses,
send them to a special folder, and decide whether to reply by landline
telephone, postage stamp, or passenger pigeon instead of email.
I don't know how you will filter GSuite email addresses with custom domain
Yesterday I watched a recent video by Lunduke. He explained that he
deactivated his account long ago, asked several times for confirmation that
everything was deleted and received only replies from some people forwarding
him to other people. In the end he was told that this cannot be
Please, if you don't mind: I have already given a scenario + questions about
that specific scenario.
You are creating another scenario and arguing about different questions that
arise from it. This is meaningless. In an oppression regime you have no
rights and no freedom. In a community
> Facebook is free, and always will
Free as in price doesn't mean freedom. The price we pay for using free things
has turned out to be much higher than actually paying with money. Currently
we pay for cable TV and 95% of the programs show commercials. Why? I don't
want to watch
Guys, check these:
https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/issues/365
https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/issues/367
Consider also that we should do the same as the second one with ghacks's
user.js... And also test how each individual setting affects the Panopticlick
score, so that we can
If you want to get something straight you should read it straight. You
interpret, modify it and then ask what is wrong. The answer is: your process
is wrong.
"I *accuse* person X of having a serious mental disorder" or "I *blame*
others for writing free software" is different from:
> For a (any) licence to take legal effect, the work has to be legally owned
by some entity, i.e. copyrighted, AFAIK.
Exactly. There is no such thing as anonymous copyright holder or licensor.
You can't go to court and say "I am the completely anonymous person of that
forum post and
I am not a fan of anybody and I am not looking for fans, followers and all
that business. Having fans is stupid vanity. I have been saying the whole
time - no authority, no conformity to ideology (=no followers). Can't people
be friends without imposing rules on each other? Isn't that what
We are in the same both.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/family-privacy-again?page=1#comment-127273
> I'm only interested in it as a technical debate, and not concerned enough
to protect my privacy. I don't know why - I should have been.
Is there is really such thing as "my"? Take health as an example: I may be
fairly careless about my health by assuming that it is *my* health and I can
What's the point of discussing the *belief* of someone, especially
considering that it obviously is dated and does not reflect the current state
of things? If I tell you "yes, it is plausible" or "no, it is not plausible"
- what value has that?
Libreboot does not remove replace proprietary firmware all chips. You still
have proprietary microcode for the CPU for example. So using a libreboot
machine doesn't change things much. Also a libreboot machine suggest that you
use a fairly old hardware. Oh... and libreboot does not fix the
> You literally wrote:
Ok. Maybe I should have been more explicit by saying "He seems to assume that
free software PER SE gives him privacy..."
Is that clear now?
> Why not?
Try it and you will see. Don't advise about things which you have not tried.
1) Learn practically 2) Share, not 1)
Update:
I received a reply from IceCat's developer. He is working on improvements to
IceCat (and Abrowser) to fix the previously mentioned issues.
Learning to speak your language, so hopefully you understand better.
> Be good to each other (and send me bitcoins) \o/
:)
He seems to assume that free software gives him privacy which is rather
superficial considering the issues mentioned in this thread:
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/freedom-security-technology-what-can-we-do
I also see that his optimism about what he wants makes him oversimplify
fairly
HTTPS is not VPN tunnel. What are you talking about? A metaphor?
The rest sounds logical but it doesn't invalidate the possibility for using
it as an anti-privacy feature.
Some searching lead me to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246#section-7.2.1
but from that explanation I don't
Conformity again. I don't know that person (in case anyone implies some
hidden connection) but everyone is free to be abnormal. Normality is a
statistical term, not a measure of sanity. Just like "Firefox respects your
privacy better" is a normal assumption but far from reality.
I have no tactics so please stop looking for such and assigning them to me. I
am simply allergic to people deliberately twisting the meaning of what is
being said. It's time wasting and annoying.
Protecting forum posts with copyright and licenses is insanity. If 2 people
communicate by
> No copyright would actually mean the classical copyright, under the Berne
convention.
"No copyright" would mean that if my whole post was just these 2 words. But
those 2 words are extracted from a sentence which contains additional and
essential info.
https://unlicense.org/
> Good
I actually thought of what you suggest. But:
1. Testing plain http may never reveal things like this (which may be
additional info)
2. Testing plain http may not show connections specific to TLS (e.g. OCSP
requests), so it may create a false sense of privacy
3. Although for the sake of
I have been testing different browsers and settings with Panopticlick.
However I can't find a single browser for which "Is your browser accepting Do
Not Track commitments?" to show something different from "no". I have sent an
email to EFF a few days ago but no reply at all.
Another
You assign a belief to someone who rejects trust, authority and belief and
who tests. And you call him dogmatic based on that just because you like to
praise N specific people.
You also seem to make no difference between disrespectful and not kneeling
down.
You messed up so much in your attempt to be derogatory.
You assign a belief to someone who rejects trust, authority and belief and
who tests. And you call him dogmatic based on that just because you like to
praise N specific people.
You also seem to make no difference between disrespectful and not kneeling
down.
I am not here to prove anything to you. You simply refuse to understand that
security has levels and ensuring security through free software is
meaningless when your hardware is a malware. Being repeatedly cynical won't
make you understand.
Yes, it worked here to (during my further tests). Perhaps some particular
program didn't display color properly previously. I didn't dig into this.
Is there an actual question I have to answer or are you just telling me
things?
Looks like it is. I actually saw that during the tcpdump tests.
Ir RPi needs nonfree software to boot (afaik). Such a device cannot possibly
respect your freedom.
> provider that respected my freedom
The question is: which online service provider runs on RYF hardware with FOSS
firmware and software?
And the answer is: none (to the best of my knowledge).
Option 1: The closest you could get to it is by purchasing your own server
without Intel ME and
> Why is email dangerous?
Because when you expose governments you don't want to use a system with many
potential attack vectors.
Here is also an excerpt from the answer by protonmail about the same
questions put to Kolabnow. The answer came 6 days later with an excuse they
have too many emails (which I read as a hint about what support you can
expect):
Unfortunately, we have hundreds of emails per day
> As for the caveat, if a correspondent doesn't use encryption, then there's
nothing that can be done.
Even if he does the encryption may be flawed through access to the private
key (through something running at ring -2 or -3). Speaking of which: I would
rather trust Google because they
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
I hope it won't be a 1.April joke :)
> It's not *your* computer but theirs, and so asking for an email provider
that runs only free software on their servers is actually being concerned
about *their* freedom.
The email provider does NOT run only free software. NO computer in this world
does that as of today. I wonder why it
I admire the passion you have for this distro :) I am definitely going to
give it a try when I have time.
> 1.Is there a perfect method to guard our electrical communication against
an attacks of peepers?
Only if you create your own network, completely isolated from the Internet.
For Internet: Abdullah's advice is perhaps the best compromise.
> You can set up a communicative network with more people than yourself and
still be isolated from the Internet. I think that was what he meant.
Yes. But MB likes to twist words and argue over the twist :)
> How come there are people talking about encryption not being safe? And may
I ask
> Disroot.org is the best free one.
Which others have you compared, on what criteria and how do they handle the
ring -2 and -3 issues?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffTJ1vPCSo
101 - 200 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
