Thus spake anonym (ano...@lavabit.com):
> 12/04/11 15:07, Mike Perry:
> >> If we migrate to shipping TBB, can we go on maintaining our Tails
> >> specific Firefox configuration delta as described above? Will the
> >> TBB's Firefox use the standard ways to fetch system-wide
> >> configuration? (I g
On 22/04/2011, and...@torproject.org wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:19:47AM -0500, joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote 1.8K
> bytes in 31 lines about:
> : The operative word for * low resource * machines is
>
> Can we define "low resource" then? A crappy netbook cpu with 512mb of
> ram is pretty low res
On 22/04/2011, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> On 4/22/2011 10:27 AM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:53:19 -0400
>> The Doctor wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm confused over the details, but I do this daily. I use TBB
>> for my anonymous/private browsing and the system firefox for
>> non-anonymous/pri
On 22/04/2011, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> On 4/22/2011 6:32 AM, Kraktus wrote:
>>
>> If I had a nice high CPU high RAM machine, you mean?
>>
>> ...I'm actually using a similar browser that's
>> close enough that it can still use Firefox 4 add-ons. Also, JonDoFox
>> makes running multiple instances of my
On 4/22/2011 10:27 AM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:53:19 -0400
The Doctor wrote:
Perhaps I'm confused over the details, but I do this daily. I use TBB
for my anonymous/private browsing and the system firefox for
non-anonymous/private browsing. The two never mix profiles, memory
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:19:47AM -0500, joebtfs...@gmx.com wrote 1.8K bytes
in 31 lines about:
: The operative word for * low resource * machines is
Can we define "low resource" then? A crappy netbook cpu with 512mb of
ram is pretty low resource, but it runs both tbb and system firefox at
the s
On 4/22/2011 9:53 AM, The Doctor wrote:
Why would you want to run several instances of Firefox -
SIMULTANEOUSLY? When I said it was easy to install multiple versions,
So the user could have a 'mundane' browser for day to day stuff and a
Torified browser so that they could browse parts of the we
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:53:19 -0400
The Doctor wrote:
> > Why would you want to run several instances of Firefox -
> > SIMULTANEOUSLY? When I said it was easy to install multiple
> > versions,
Perhaps I'm confused over the details, but I do this daily. I use TBB
for my anonymous/private browsing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2011 05:50 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> Why would you want to run several instances of Firefox -
> SIMULTANEOUSLY? When I said it was easy to install multiple versions,
So the user could have a 'mundane' browser for day to day stuff and a
Torif
On 4/22/2011 6:32 AM, Kraktus wrote:
If I had a nice high CPU high RAM machine, you mean?
...I'm actually using a similar browser that's
close enough that it can still use Firefox 4 add-ons. Also, JonDoFox
makes running multiple instances of my non-Firefox quite easy: there's
a menu option for
On 21 April 2011 17:50, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 1:22 PM, Kraktus wrote:
>>
>> Well, if I had an 8-core machine with 4+GB RAM, or even a single-core
>> machine with over 1 GHz and at least 1GB RAM, I'd probably have four
>> browser profiles for Firefox alone: ...
>>
>> However, seeing has
On 4/21/2011 1:22 PM, Kraktus wrote:
Well, if I had an 8-core machine with 4+GB RAM, or even a single-core
machine with over 1 GHz and at least 1GB RAM, I'd probably have four
browser profiles for Firefox alone: ...
However, seeing has how my computer is single core, less than 1 GHz,
and has les
Well, if I had an 8-core machine with 4+GB RAM, or even a single-core
machine with over 1 GHz and at least 1GB RAM, I'd probably have four
browser profiles for Firefox alone: one for Tor (Torbutton or whatever
you guys decide to use, plus Noscript, AdBlockPlus, Cookie Monster,
etc.), one for JonDo
12/04/11 15:07, Mike Perry:
>> If we migrate to shipping TBB, can we go on maintaining our Tails
>> specific Firefox configuration delta as described above? Will the
>> TBB's Firefox use the standard ways to fetch system-wide
>> configuration? (I guess this should be a opt-in option, probably not
>
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:09:35AM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 12.04.2011 16:59, Milton Scritsmier wrote:
> > After reading most of the replies to this topic, I'm not sure the
> > average user has weighed in. [...]
>
> Thank you. This list is dominated, if not completely focused, on
> developm
On 12.04.2011 16:59, Milton Scritsmier wrote:
> After reading most of the replies to this topic, I'm not sure the
> average user has weighed in. [...]
Thank you. This list is dominated, if not completely focused, on
development and security research. The Torproject as a whole has for the
last 10 y
* Jérémy Bobbio [2011:04:14 08:29 +0200]:
> Here is a possible solution that quickly came to me, but I have no real
> clue on how much work it would need (and if every party involved would
> accept it):
>
> 1. Apply specific Tor patches against Firefox 4 in Debian iceweasel
> package. The c
* Jim [2011:04:14 23:52 -0600]:
> Mike Perry wrote:
> >I now no longer believe even this much. I think we should completely
> >do away with the toggle model, as well as the entire idea of Torbutton
> >as a separate piece of user-facing software, and rely solely on the
> >Tor Browser Bundles, exce
Mike Perry wrote:
I now no longer believe even this much. I think we should completely
do away with the toggle model, as well as the entire idea of Torbutton
as a separate piece of user-facing software, and rely solely on the
Tor Browser Bundles, except perhaps with the addition of standalone
Tor
Thus spake sigi (torn...@cpunk.de):
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:29:36AM +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > Last comment: we should all continue to stress out that Internet is
> > not only made of web sites. If Internet was only about web sites, Tor
> > would had a harder time happening: th
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:29:36AM +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Last comment: we should all continue to stress out that Internet is
> not only made of web sites. If Internet was only about web sites, Tor
> would had a harder time happening: this new protocol was free to run
> through the cab
On 04/11/2011 08:22 PM, Anders Andersson wrote:
> I consider myself a rather technical user with a lot of knowledge
> about the pitfalls of using Tor and security products in general, and
> I'm scared shit whenever I want to use torbutton in firefox because
> I'm afraid I will forget to toggle it,
Thus spake Jérémy Bobbio (lu...@debian.org):
> How does that relate to Torbutton and Tor Browser Bundle?
>
> Well, as already pointed out by intrigeri, Debian has gone a great
> length to avoid embedded code copies in its source packages. Firefox
> security record is far from perfect, and I see n
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 04:33:08PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> I now no longer believe even this much. I think we should completely
> do away with the toggle model, as well as the entire idea of Torbutton
> as a separate piece of user-facing software, and rely solely on the
> Tor Browser Bundles, ex
Thus spake Milton Scritsmier (ktr-theonionrou...@dea.spamcon.org):
> On 4/11/2011 5:33 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> > I think the average user is horribly confused by both the toggle model
> > and the need to install additional software into Firefox (or
> > conversely, the need to *also* install Tor so
On 4/11/2011 5:33 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> I think the average user is horribly confused by both the toggle model
> and the need to install additional software into Firefox (or
> conversely, the need to *also* install Tor software onto their
> computers after they install Torbutton). I also think th
On 4/11/2011 11:11 PM, Jim wrote:
Mike Perry wrote:
I think we should completely
do away with the toggle model, as well as the entire idea of Torbutton
as a separate piece of user-facing software, and rely solely on the
Tor Browser Bundles, except perhaps with the addition of standalone
Tor+Vida
Thus spake intrigeri (intrig...@boum.org):
> Mike Perry wrote (11 Apr 2011 23:33:08 GMT) :
> > So can anyone bring up any specific issues that may be caused by the
> > change?
>
> Context: Tails currently ships Debian's Iceweasel (Firefox renamed for
> trademark reasons) and Torbutton. We don't c
The reason I am discussing this in so much detail here is because I
believe there is a chance that there are users out there who rely on
the toggle model and/or their OS Firefox build, and may be confused or
enraged by the new model. I'm asking this list to get an idea of how
many of tho
Hi,
Being relying myself on Firefox profiles / virtual machines rather
than the toggle thing, I'd personally be happy to see it go away.
Let me put my Tails developer hat on. Done. Let's go.
Mike Perry wrote (11 Apr 2011 23:33:08 GMT) :
> The reason I am discussing this in so much detail here is
Thus spake tagnaq (tag...@gmail.com):
> On 04/12/2011 08:26 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
> > Hrm, your use case would be "Download the TBB, and then configure it
> > manually to use an alternate proxy." You'd still be downloading (and
> > running) and extra Tor and Vidalia instance, but we're hoping to m
On 04/12/2011 08:26 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
> Hrm, your use case would be "Download the TBB, and then configure it
> manually to use an alternate proxy." You'd still be downloading (and
> running) and extra Tor and Vidalia instance, but we're hoping to make
> that seamless:
> https://trac.torproject.
Hi,
grarpamp wrote (12 Apr 2011 01:31:24 GMT) :
> I'd rather see stuff sandboxed than tweaked or hacked... too much
> maintenance. I'd bet torproject could distribute a unix (bsd or
> linux) memory stick. One version to native boot, the other a
> virtualbox of the same image. Stuff it full of comm
Thus spake Jim (jimmy...@copper.net):
> Mike Perry wrote:
> >So can anyone bring up any specific issues that may be caused by the
> >change?
> >
> >We are collecting these issues as child tickets of this bug:
> >https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2880
> >
> >As an aside, we also are c
Thus spake Anders Andersson (pipat...@gmail.com):
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
> > (blah blah)
>
> Thus, I can only agree to 100% that this is a good idea.
>
> The only problem I can come up with at 2 AM is that maintaining a
> separate firefox can be a little messy in v
On 12.04.2011 04:11, Jim wrote:
> Mike Perry wrote:
>> I think we should completely
>> do away with the toggle model, as well as the entire idea of Torbutton
>> as a separate piece of user-facing software, and rely solely on the
>> Tor Browser Bundles, except perhaps with the addition of standalone
Mike Perry wrote:
I think we should completely
do away with the toggle model, as well as the entire idea of Torbutton
as a separate piece of user-facing software, and rely solely on the
Tor Browser Bundles, except perhaps with the addition of standalone
Tor+Vidalia binaries for use by experts and
On Monday 11 April 2011 19:33:08 Mike Perry wrote:
> The reason I am discussing this in so much detail here is because I
> believe there is a chance that there are users out there who rely on
> the toggle model and/or their OS Firefox build, and may be confused or
> enraged by the new model. I'm as
I never did see much need for torbutton. Aren't all it's settings
programmable anyways through about:config and config files?
I often use separate firefox profiles... prefs.js for each are identically
configured except for the proxy settings. Why toggle when you can
spawn? Is that convenience reall
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
> (blah blah)
> The reason I am discussing this in so much detail here is because I
> believe there is a chance that there are users out there who rely on
> the toggle model and/or their OS Firefox build, and may be confused or
> enraged by the ne
In a random bar about two years ago, a Google Chrome dev asked me why
Torbutton didn't just launch a new, clean Firefox profile/instance to
deal with all of the tremendous state separation issues. Simply by
virtue of him asking me this question, I immediately realized how much
better off Chrome was
41 matches
Mail list logo
