Run a snowflake-proxy instance to help censored users access the Tor network (To be clear: no traffic exits from your IP, you're just relaying that traffic to a bridge that then connects to the Tor network): https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/snowflake/stand...
It wasn't early; v2 desperately needed to be phased out. The crypto was obsolete and the protocol had known flaws. Over a year's lead time was given (see timeline: https://blog.torproject.org/v2-deprecation-timeline/).
However, links live on in a million places, and it's hard to motivate hobbyist webmasters of niche onion sites to migrate. On /r/Tor, we regularly get people asking why some onion site doesn't work, and it's a v2 site. That's two years after they stopped working. (I wish Tor Browser would detect a v2 attempt and give a nice explanation instead of an opaque error message, though)
The truth is that whatever schedule they could choose would cause allegations of it being too early.
Technically there are still plenty of tor v2 infrastructure software running out there. It's only the people using the modern Tor Project releases that cannot visit these sites. The rest of us still can.
I still host a couple v2 onions on brute forced vanity tor domain names. Because that's what I wanted to use tor for, the name system, not to be anonymous or secure or anything. I just didn't like having to "rent" a ~.com domain that's not mine. On tor I thought I owned my domains because I held the private keys. But the tor project relieved me of that delusion when they simply dropped support for v2 name resolution and (mostly) everyone stopped being able to get to my sites.
But that's tangential. Regardless of weather tor v2 removal was early or not, the switch to secluded, account requiring, forums instead of comments was bad. Self hosting the bad system doesn't make it better.
> Because that's what I wanted to use tor for, the name system, not to be anonymous or secure or anything. I just didn't like having to "rent" a ~.com domain that's not mine.
The Tor project doesn't exist for whatever usecase you were using it for.
> On tor I thought I owned my domains because I held the private keys. But the tor project relieved me of that delusion when they simply dropped support for v2 name resolution
Not routing to v2 domains isn't the same as not owning your .onion addresses? The latter is cryptographically guaranteed, is it not?
They've made it very clear they don't care now. But I still remember when it was part of what they advertised about tor. A lot has changed since 2010 in the tor project.
probably something something Debian. I don't even get it, there's no reason not to just adopt v3. There was one reason, for a short while, that certain hosts might have wanted to stick with v2, but that hasn't been the case for 2+ years now. There are v3 vanity generators, v2 urls are still too long to memorize anyway. Sorry, but this just feels like another user being stubborn about change, ignoring that that change happened for a reason. See also: Wayland.
This is one of the main reasons why I keep using Tor daily. The more people use Tor for normal browsing, the less interesting it becomes to be a Tor user, the better the anonymity for everyone else.
What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their email, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their email privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity.
Here's one that is "production" ready: the Mirage-Firewall microkernel built using MirageOS and running on Qubes OS.[0] In general MirageOS allows you to:
> ... construct unikernels for secure, high-performance network applications across a variety of cloud computing and mobile platforms.
Code can be developed on a normal OS such as Linux or macOS, and then compiled into a fully-standalone, specialised unikernel that runs under a Xen or KVM hypervisor.[1]
A unikernel is sort of the opposite of a microkernel. Instead of the minimum running in kernel space, the whole thing including the traditionally user code runs in kernel space.
To be honest, I don’t understand why people keep acting like Google has control over Chrome(ium) with some iron fist. It’s dual open license. Microsoft is contributing so many patches that they have a decent amount of sway over it already. If Google ever truly steps over the line, Microsoft will just fork it and everyone will swap their upstream to Microsoft-Chromium..
> But honestly it already happened, Firefox is already irrelevant.
> Mozilla is mis-managed organization that is funded to avoid anti-trust investigations, they dont fully push for privacy because they are afraid of google, do out of touch changes, and focus on political advocacy.
> Compare that to brave, which builds its own independent search engine, ad network, and has privacy by default in its products.
>There is no hope that Mozilla and Firefox will change the status-quo anytime soon, Firefox is losing users at crazy rate, and Mozilla is absolutely failing to do anything to change Firefox's destiny towards irrelevance.
> Brave is almost everything Mozilla should've been.
> Actually do what they sey, no hidden google analytics in their products, no unique ID for each installer downloaded, push for privacy by default and independence from big tech, not being shy from google, because they are their only income.
> I would argue, that if Mozilla wants to turn its course around with their "limited resources" it should drop gecko, and anything irrelevant to the users experience.
> Fork Chromium, the best web engine out there by a mile, and remove any anti-privacy / anticompetitive code, while still taking advantage of the huge development resources directed to chromium from many parties, and maybe Mozilla can also influence Chromium's development.
> Start pushing privacy by default, its the reason brave is gaining users at such a rapid pace, its a browser I recommend to everyone, as just by installing it they already are much more private than with chrome.
> What matters is the users experience, its why brave is growing
I'm out of the loop. I've been using FF for years without any issues across multiple OSes and devices. I plan to continue doing that. I simply don't understand the negative sentiment I see about it, it's served me very well.
Brave has publicly declared support for Manifest v2 in perpetuity, no? They even seem to be pondering how to distribute v2 extensions post-sunset in Google Chrome[0]
> Brave will support uBO and uMatrix so long as Google doesn’t remove underlying V2 code paths (which seem to be needed for Chrome for enterprise support, so should stay in the Chromium open source). Will Google Chrome Web Store really kick them out over V2? We will host if needed.
> > I’d be interested to hear a plan for Brave on what will happen if upstream removes the code paths needed for pre-v3 ad blockers.
> We could fork them back in at higher maintenance cost. No point in speculating — I don’t write checks of unknown amount and sign them, and Google looks likely to keep V2 support for a year (thanks be to “enterprise”).
Maintaining out-of-tree patches for a project as large and quickly-changing as Chromium will be a lot of work. I know someone who worked on Amazon's Silk browser team and they had an engineer (rotation) working working full-time to keep their Chromium fork up to date within Google's upstream. Brave doesn't have nearly the resources that Amazon does.
Yea you've seen it tried in projects like Waterfox and Palemoon and it eventually becomes too much to deal with. (Following the old Firefox addons system that is)
Yeah it's clear that was never going to work -- the whole point of dropping the old addons was making big architectural changes that weren't possible with the old APIs. You can't merge the new architectural changes and the old APIs without running into the issues they were trying to avoid by removing the old APIs in the first place.
There are few projects and companies that do exactly that, including CEF open source project. Perhaps they should join forces and make a joint OpenChromium project.
> Someone warned years ago that <insert extremely specific thing>
No, the gp said:
> while pretending they weren't supporting google's Chrome monopoly
Monopoly means Google's interests will be served rather than the user's. This means taking away things that are of value to users / users losing control over features / etc. Like proxy extensions, yes.
The amount of work it would take to fork Chromium and maintain a working secure browser with MV2 hooks into the browser internals would be so large that you'd need a dedicated team whose job it is to constantly backport upstream Chromium changes and ensure they still work with the old MV2 subsystem. That would take a lot of time and money.
Well you don't need to implement every stupid thing big G thinks should be in it, just the really critical stuff. Even if you freeze all features right now you'll probably still have a better renderer than gecko for 5 years into the future.
I mean right now I bet a lot of people will simply not update to MV3 and continue using the last known MV2 build into perpetuity until certs break or something else. I sure intend to.
Backporting from an entity that is hostile towards MV2 makes me suspect that Google isn't going to play ball and make maintaining an MV2-compatible Chromium fork easy.
No, especially not if you want to watch videos, the DRM plugin is a binary blob that only Google approved browsers get to run.
Then there are all the Google services that will break in unexpected ways in your browser, sometimes just because your user agent isn't identical to Chromes if past reports from Firefox users are any indication. Basically expect to be shit on by the biggest internet giant around at ever possible corner.
Depends on the browser and platform. WideVine support on Firefox for Linux is limited, one of the biggest effects of this is that some video platforms refuse to serve up high definition video to Firefox users on Linux. Netflix, for example, will only allow you to watch video at 720p on Firefox for Linux. The existing WideVine support comes directly from Google.
Open Addons an Themes, click on Plugins, by default you should see a line that says "Widevine Content Decryption Module provided by Google Inc." . Note the Google Inc. .
Fair, and I didn't know that or had forgotten it, but I think Firefox is still relevant to the parent's comment, and the context of the topic:
> No, especially not if you want to watch videos, the DRM plugin is a binary blob that only Google approved browsers get to run.
So it might be better to say that you don't need to be locked into Google's browser (or a fork of its OS base) in order to consume a wide variety of online content, and you can thus avoid this issue with Chrome extensions entirely. And at least with Firefox it is just a plugin, so presumably could be replaced with a binary blob from someone else if Google's influence became worrisome enough (and I do wonder, isn't it already worrisome enough??).
It could be controlled by a third party that isn't trying to dominate the browser market. And Google already caused issues years ago when it side loaded that plugin on open source distros and initially refused to provide an option to disable this behavior in chromium.
Secure DRM requires that your device have keys that are burned-in that you can't access. It's impossible to have an open implementation of a non-broken DRM system.
Spite is at times my main source of motivation, and still leaves me physically uncapable of following the rate of breakage of upstream Firefox (i.e. I cant keep my patches up to date), which I'm assuming it's actually a more sensible upstream when compared with Google.
You can help by running a Snowflake proxy (which merely functions as a gateway to the Tor Network, so you don't need to worry as no traffic exits from your IP) if you're in a country that doesn't censor Tor. You can either run the standalone Snowflake proxy:
> Hearing these pleas, the Internet Archive proposed temporarily lifting the technical
controls enforcing its one-to-one ratio. Since all of the libraries were closed, the Internet
Archive reasoned, there were surely more non-circulating copies locked up in shuttered libraries
than would be borrowed via the Internet Archive even without those technical controls in place.
