On 2022-01-14 17:51, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>> On 2022-01-14 16:20, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> noscript <september@noulin.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The exact settings are:
>>>> toolkit.telemetry.rejected=true
>>>
>>> I haven't got that, but instead there's toolkit.telemetry.enabled,
>>> which is not only set to False but greyed out so that I can't
>>> toggle it True. Maybe that's because I also added ".invalid" to
>>> the end of the toolkit.telemetry.server domain, or maybe they just
>>> don't want to know what goes on in my world?
>>
>> Many/most Linux distributions completely disable telemetry in their
>> builds. The distros and their package maintainers still care about
>> privacy. (At least somewhat.) That's why it's cannot be enabled in the
>> version of Firefox you're running.
>
> No actually I'm using the official Mozilla binary of v. 96, so it's
> definitely the Firefox developers who prevented that setting from
> being toggled in my about:config for some reason (possibly because
> I've fiddled with so many other about:config settings).

Interesting. It's been a while since I read that the distros were the
ones disabling telemetry. (It's permanently disable here, using the
Debian build.) Maybe things have changed or maybe the article I read
was wrong.

Either way, I'm glad to hear that the official Firefox build also has it
permanently off.

Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> writes:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:45:15 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Don't forget Apple's stuff too. Even Linux. Everything is getting worse. :(
>>
>> Don't know about Apple, but as for Linux, NO FREAKING WAY.
>> It continues to improve. No, I do not use a desktop, fvwm3 here.
>> I don't see a lot of change, but when I do, it's a change for the better.
>>
>
> Good choice (fvwm3)!
>
> As far as browsers, Palemoon is the only choice, and coupled
> with graphical links (links -g) there is no better way (IMO) to
> access the degenerate web.
>
> http://links.twibright.com/
>
> There is also ungoogled chromium:
>
> https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
>
> Any web sites that cannot be viewed in the above browsers are
> not worth the INTELLIGENT man's time.

I'm using Brave. Works well enough.
Firefox kept crashing.

I've used all the Fvwm versions.
Regardless of how many features Fvwm added the appearance and operation
of my setup has never changed unless I changed my configuration.

--
Dan Espen

On 14/01/2022 22:07, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) writes:
>>> 1.AAC0832 <z24ba7.net> wrote:
>>>> Seems, like Winders, the more they "improve" it
>>>> the more problems.
>>>
>>> Don't forget Apple's stuff too. Even Linux. Everything is getting worse. :(
>>
>> Don't know about Apple, but as for Linux, NO FREAKING WAY.
>> It continues to improve. No, I do not use a desktop, fvwm3 here.
>> I don't see a lot of change, but when I do, it's a change for the better.
>
> But that depends, eg. my router running OpenWRT keeps getting
> slower to boot and has less free space in the 8MB of flash after
> each major upgrade, yet doesn't do anything I want it to any
> better. If it weren't for security fixes, I'd be much better off
> sticking with a very old release. Granted some redesigning of
> kernel functionality is done partly in the name of security, but
> as a rule increasing the amount of code isn't the way to reduce
> security vulnerabilities.
>
> "As the current stable 21.02 release uses kernel 5.4 that is roughly
> 0.5 MB larger than the kernel 4.14 used in the old 19.07.x releases"
> https://openwrt.org/supported_devices/432_warning
>
> That said, in these discussions people do far too often confuse
> the Linux kernel with popular Linux distros where bloated software
> like default "desktops"/WMs get much worse over time than any picky
> issue I have with the growth of the Linux kernel itself. I use JWM
> here, also no Systemd, nor PulseAudio, and find that on a PC there
> indeed isn't that much obvious change going on, with maybe a rare
> useful feature appearing unobtrusively in the kernel from time to
> time. So compared to M$ and Apple, who aren't even trying to make
> something that would be practical to run on an old consumer-level
> router, Linux is remaining extremely good.
>

When I used to write code, it would start off great , and then as I
realised what really needed to be done after coding it, I would rewrite
huge chunks of it to reduce the size ...after three iterations it was
generally respectable.

Really linux needs to start again....
....i'll get my coat...
--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 15/01/2022 00:00, John-Paul Stewart wrote:
> On 2022-01-14 17:51, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> John-Paul Stewart <jpstewart@personalprojects.net> wrote:
>>> On 2022-01-14 16:20, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> noscript <september@noulin.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The exact settings are:
>>>>> toolkit.telemetry.rejected=true
>>>>
>>>> I haven't got that, but instead there's toolkit.telemetry.enabled,
>>>> which is not only set to False but greyed out so that I can't
>>>> toggle it True. Maybe that's because I also added ".invalid" to
>>>> the end of the toolkit.telemetry.server domain, or maybe they just
>>>> don't want to know what goes on in my world?
>>>
>>> Many/most Linux distributions completely disable telemetry in their
>>> builds. The distros and their package maintainers still care about
>>> privacy. (At least somewhat.) That's why it's cannot be enabled in the
>>> version of Firefox you're running.
>>
>> No actually I'm using the official Mozilla binary of v. 96, so it's
>> definitely the Firefox developers who prevented that setting from
>> being toggled in my about:config for some reason (possibly because
>> I've fiddled with so many other about:config settings).
>
> Interesting. It's been a while since I read that the distros were the
> ones disabling telemetry. (It's permanently disable here, using the
> Debian build.) Maybe things have changed or maybe the article I read
> was wrong.
>
> Either way, I'm glad to hear that the official Firefox build also has it
> permanently off.
>
Apropos of this and other thread drifts, firefox 96 arrived in my
distro, and so one presumes its all fixed. HOWEVER they fixed something
else so my generally white on dark theme, suddenly also applied to
bookmark drop down menus, which had previously been resolutely white, so
I had to change the text color to white...

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 14/01/2022 22:21, Ant wrote:
> Firefox v96.0.1 is out now. Upgrade and retry?
>
Have done.

but TBH the problem had stopped before that anyway.

It seemed to be that this bug required something else out there in
'netland to manifest - so fixing either end worked, and someone fixed
the far end.

>

--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 14/01/2022 23:53, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:45:15 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Don't forget Apple's stuff too. Even Linux. Everything is getting worse. :(
>>
>> Don't know about Apple, but as for Linux, NO FREAKING WAY.
>> It continues to improve. No, I do not use a desktop, fvwm3 here.
>> I don't see a lot of change, but when I do, it's a change for the better.
>>
>
> Good choice (fvwm3)!
>
> As far as browsers, Palemoon is the only choice, and coupled
> with graphical links (links -g) there is no better way (IMO) to
> access the degenerate web.
>
> http://links.twibright.com/
>
> There is also ungoogled chromium:
>
> https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
>
> Any web sites that cannot be viewed in the above browsers are
> not worth the INTELLIGENT man's time.
>
>
Some of us have no option but to use whatever works with our financial
companies servers.

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 14/01/2022 22:21, Ant wrote:
>> Firefox v96.0.1 is out now. Upgrade and retry?
>>
> Have done.
>
> but TBH the problem had stopped before that anyway.
>
> It seemed to be that this bug required something else out there in
> 'netland to manifest - so fixing either end worked, and someone fixed
> the far end.
>
>
>>
>
>
freddyb Mozilla Security:
https://lobste.rs/s/zcjtv2/1749908_infinite_loop_http3_hangs_socket#c_kikbal

"We’re disabling HTTP/3 for the time being, which is hopefully picked up
automatically upon restart. Restarting the browser should just help. ...
Edit: The bug was in HTTP/3, but not in “all of HTTP/3”. We solved this
on the server-end."

Bug 1749957 - Fix parsing of content-length http3 header
https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D135871

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:08:55 -0500, John-Paul Stewart wrote:
>
> On 2022-01-14 16:20, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> noscript <september@noulin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The exact settings are:
>>> toolkit.telemetry.rejected=true
>>
>> I haven't got that, but instead there's toolkit.telemetry.enabled,
>> which is not only set to False but greyed out so that I can't
>> toggle it True. Maybe that's because I also added ".invalid" to
>> the end of the toolkit.telemetry.server domain, or maybe they just
>> don't want to know what goes on in my world?
>
> Many/most Linux distributions completely disable telemetry in their
> builds. The distros and their package maintainers still care about
> privacy. (At least somewhat.) That's why it's cannot be enabled in the
> version of Firefox you're running.

As it so happened, I have installed a Debian distributions from an ISO
from their home page and added FF via aptitude. After the first start its
prefs.js contains

user_pref("app.update.lastUpdateTime.telemetry_modules_ping", $8-digit-number);
user_pref("browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.feeds.telemetry", false);
user_pref("browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.telemetry", false);
user_pref("browser.ping-centre.telemetry", false);
user_pref("services.settings.main.search-telemetry.last_check", $8-digit-number);
user_pref("toolkit.telemetry.cachedClientID", "$long-hex-number");
user_pref("toolkit.telemetry.pioneer-new-studies-available", true);
user_pref("toolkit.telemetry.previousBuildID", "$some-date-stamp");
user_pref("toolkit.telemetry.reportingpolicy.firstRun", false);

concerning "telemetry" (some numbers altered). I also set

browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.feeds.telemetry

browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.telemetry

browser.ping-centre.telemetry

to "false" (were originally "true"). No idea, if the default settings came
from the package manager or Firefox-build.

I should also set "toolkit.telemetry.pioneer-new-studies-available" to
"false"...
--
Andreas

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:30:06 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> I'm using Brave. Works well enough.

Dunno about Brave, trying to understand its purpose reading the Wikipedia
page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)>.

Just seems to be based on Chromium with some automatic ad-blockers, but
also

<quote>provides users the choice to turn on optional ads that pay users
for their attention in the form of Basic Attention Tokens (BAT)
cryptocurrency.</quote>

Can't make up my mind about Brave...

> Firefox kept crashing.

Runs rock stable. So stable, it eats up all available CPU time ad RAM,
plus paging space on some web pages. I try to avoid FF.
--
Andreas

On 15/01/2022 11:56, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:30:06 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>> I'm using Brave. Works well enough.
>
> Dunno about Brave, trying to understand its purpose reading the Wikipedia
> page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)>.
>
> Just seems to be based on Chromium with some automatic ad-blockers, but
> also
>
> <quote>provides users the choice to turn on optional ads that pay users
> for their attention in the form of Basic Attention Tokens (BAT)
> cryptocurrency.</quote>
>
> Can't make up my mind about Brave...
>
>> Firefox kept crashing.
>
> Runs rock stable. So stable, it eats up all available CPU time ad RAM,
> plus paging space on some web pages. I try to avoid FF.
>

"ad RAM". That's about right!

I think they have fixed some memory leaks in the last few rels.

But last time I looked javaShit-heavy sites would still consume all CPU
and lock the browser up for seconds at a time

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:32:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>>
> Some of us have no option but to use whatever works with our financial
> companies servers.
>

That's usually only 2 or 3 web sites. For those cases I will use Iron:

https://www.srware.net/iron/

Unfortunately, Google has the financial/commercial world by the balls
and that world turns literally around Chrome.

Supposedly, the open-source Chromium can be configured to eliminate most
of the useless junk but I'm too lazy to do that. So I use Iron.

On Gentoo, chromium can be built without much fuss:

[~] emerge -pv chromium

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] dev-libs/re2-0.2021.11.01:0/9::gentoo USE="-icu" 400 KiB
[ebuild N ] dev-util/gn-0.1943::gentoo USE="-vim-syntax" 691 KiB
[ebuild N ] net-dns/c-ares-1.18.1:0/2::gentoo USE="-static-libs -test" 1,524 KiB
[ebuild N ] net-libs/nodejs-16.13.1:0/16::gentoo USE="icu inspector lto snapshot ssl system-icu system-ssl -debug -doc -npm -pax-kernel -systemtap -test" CPU_FLAGS_X86="sse2" 33,113 KiB
[ebuild N ] www-client/chromium-98.0.4758.54:0/beta::gentoo USE="hangouts js-type-check official (pic) proprietary-codecs suid system-harfbuzz system-icu system-png (-component-build) -cups -custom-cflags -debug (-headless) -kerberos -pulseaudio -screencast (-selinux) (-system-ffmpeg) -vaapi -wayland -widevine" L10N="-am -ar -bg -bn -ca -cs -da -de -el -en-GB -es -es-419 -et -fa -fi -fil -fr -gu -he -hi -hr -hu -id -it -ja -kn -ko -lt -lv -ml -mr -ms -nb -nl -pl -pt-BR -pt-PT -ro -ru -sk -sl -sr -sv -sw -ta -te -th -tr -uk -vi -zh-CN -zh-TW" 1,213,151 KiB

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 12:43:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 15/01/2022 11:56, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:30:06 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm using Brave. Works well enough.
>> Dunno about Brave, trying to understand its purpose reading the
>> Wikipedia
>> page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)>.
>> Just seems to be based on Chromium with some automatic ad-blockers,
>> but
>> also
>> <quote>provides users the choice to turn on optional ads that pay
>> users
>> for their attention in the form of Basic Attention Tokens (BAT)
>> cryptocurrency.</quote>
>> Can't make up my mind about Brave...
>>
>>> Firefox kept crashing.
>> Runs rock stable. So stable, it eats up all available CPU time ad
>> RAM,
>> plus paging space on some web pages. I try to avoid FF.
>>
>
> "ad RAM". That's about right!

"And". My "n" key is sort of broken since months. I should be more
careful to check my postings before I send them.
--
Andreas

Am 15.01.22 um 12:56 schrieb Andreas Kohlbach:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:30:06 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Firefox kept crashing.
>
> Runs rock stable. So stable, it eats up all available CPU time ad RAM,
> plus paging space on some web pages. I try to avoid FF.

I use FF on all OSs. Linux, Mac, Android und iOS. It is by far the most
trustworthy browser that exists. And also the most flexible one. And in
addition it is the most stable. I hardly ever experienced crashes.

If it acts up I recommend to set up a new profile and/or I would start
FF without add-ons to test.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 15.01.22 um 13:43 schrieb Diego Garcia:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:32:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>
>> Some of us have no option but to use whatever works with our financial
>> companies servers.
>>
>
> That's usually only 2 or 3 web sites. For those cases I will use Iron:
>
> https://www.srware.net/iron/
>
> Unfortunately, Google has the financial/commercial world by the balls
> and that world turns literally around Chrome.

My experience is totally different. Chrome is not really that important.
Safari and others are at least as important.

And there are standards. The only company that still thinks it sets
standards is $Microsoft.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> writes:

> Am 15.01.22 um 12:56 schrieb Andreas Kohlbach:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:30:06 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> Firefox kept crashing.
>>
>> Runs rock stable. So stable, it eats up all available CPU time ad RAM,
>> plus paging space on some web pages. I try to avoid FF.
>
> I use FF on all OSs. Linux, Mac, Android und iOS. It is by far the most
> trustworthy browser that exists. And also the most flexible one. And in
> addition it is the most stable. I hardly ever experienced crashes.
>
> If it acts up I recommend to set up a new profile and/or I would start
> FF without add-ons to test.

I used the remove profile trick quite a few times.
After a while even that stopped working.

I think something must have gotten fixed because now I can start FF and
use it for a while, but I've grown used to Brave.

--
Dan Espen

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 14:32:23 +0100, Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>
> My experience is totally different. Chrome is not really that important.
>
> And there are standards. The only company that still thinks it sets
> standards is $Microsoft.
>

Google does not THINK that it sets standards. Google actually DOES
set standards. One example is AMP:

https://developers.google.com/amp

Google also eliminates standards.

Google has destroyed MathML. The Google rendering engine, which
is used by the vast majority of browsers on the planet, no longer renders
MathML markup -- at least not completely. Google has unilaterally decided
that MathML, a standard set forth by W3C, is insecure (WTF!) and
therefore has to go.

The only substitute for MathML is the odious javascript MathJax, which
is far more complicated to deploy.

Firefox is the only browser remaining that supports MathML but most
likely they will give it the ax as well.

Google also demands that web sites use the HTTPS protocol or else
it will punish them by lowering their search rankings. People who maintain
their own web sites, such as myself, are thereby forced to spend extra
$$$$ to purchase certs regularly from a cert authority. This is veritable
blackmail.

So Google is evil incarnate but nothing can be done to stop it.

Support true alternatives like links and dillo:

https://github.com/rodarima/dillo

http://links.twibright.com/

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
> Google also demands that web sites use the HTTPS protocol or else it
> will punish them by lowering their search rankings. People who
> maintain their own web sites, such as myself, are thereby forced to
> spend extra $$$$ to purchase certs regularly from a cert authority.

While you /can/ spend extra $$$$, you certianly do not have to do so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Encrypt

Let's Encrypt is a non-profit certificate authority run by Internet
Security Research Group (ISRG) that provides X.509 certificates for
Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption *at no charge*.

And for automating the aquisition of certifcates from Let's Encrypt:

https://github.com/dehydrated-io/dehydrated

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 14:25:13 +0000, Rich wrote:

>
> While you /can/ spend extra $$$$, you certianly do not have to do so:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Encrypt
>

Let's Encrypt requires a dedicated IP address.

People, such as myself, who choose to use shared hosting must
then purchase a dedicated IP address.

The expense is not significant, but the principle involved certainly
is significant. Why should Google be permitted to dictate how web sites
are implemented? Why should google be permitted to act as an ad hoc,
self-proclaimed web authority?

Google also has influenced the removal of FTP capability from web
browsers, again due to their obsession with security and their desire
to be the "nanny" of the Internet.

Anyone who uses a browser based on Google's engine is complicit
in their evil empire.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 14:25:13 +0000, Rich wrote:
>
>>
>> While you /can/ spend extra $$$$, you certianly do not have to do so:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Encrypt
>>
>
> Let's Encrypt requires a dedicated IP address.

Are you certian of that fact? I see nothing in the Let's Encrypt FAQ
indicating a static IP is required. However on the two systems where I
am using it, I already have a static IP (purposefully, for other
reasons unrelated to TLS/SSL certificates) and so I simply may never
have noticed such a requirement.

> The expense is not significant, but the principle involved certainly
> is significant. Why should Google be permitted to dictate how web
> sites are implemented? Why should google be permitted to act as an
> ad hoc, self-proclaimed web authority?

While I do agree with your sentiment, reality is what whomever is the
800lb gorilla of the moment gets to /dictate/ terms by being that 800lb
gorilla that we others may not like. And the web moves too fast for
most regulations (which would tame such 800lb gorillas) to keep up
with. So we are stuck with what we have in many ways.

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
> Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 14:25:13 +0000, Rich wrote:
>>> While you /can/ spend extra $$$$, you certianly do not have to do so:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Encrypt
>>
>> Let's Encrypt requires a dedicated IP address.
>
> Are you certian of that fact? I see nothing in the Let's Encrypt FAQ
> indicating a static IP is required. However on the two systems where I
> am using it, I already have a static IP (purposefully, for other
> reasons unrelated to TLS/SSL certificates) and so I simply may never
> have noticed such a requirement.

HTTP-01 challenges require that LE can reach your web server. A static
address achieves that but a dynamic address should work too provided you
keep the DNS up to date.

DNS-01 challenges require that you supply the response via DNS. Your web
server (or IMAP server, etc) doesn’t have to be reachable. I use this
strategy to maintain TLS certificates for my internal services (which
have RFC1918 addresses). Whether that’s an extra cost depends on how
you’re doing DNS.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Hello.

On 2022-01-15 16:29 -0000 Rich wrote:
> Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 14:25:13 +0000, Rich wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> While you /can/ spend extra $$$$, you certianly do not have to do
> >> so:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Encrypt
> >>
> >
> > Let's Encrypt requires a dedicated IP address.
>
> Are you certian of that fact? I see nothing in the Let's Encrypt FAQ
> indicating a static IP is required. However on the two systems where
> I am using it, I already have a static IP (purposefully, for other
> reasons unrelated to TLS/SSL certificates) and so I simply may never
> have noticed such a requirement.

You may need a static IP address (vs a dynamic one), but not a dedicated
one. At my work we have hundreds of domains each with a Let's Encrypt
certificate on one static IP address.

But we had to modify a Let's Encrypt client to obtain the certificates
for the special setup we have in order to properly respond to the HTTP
authentication requests from the Let's Encrypt servers to prove that
we actually own the domains we request certificates for.

I think encrypting website traffic with TLS is a good thing as it makes
it at least harder to tamper with or eavesdrop on it.

Regards

Markus

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 16:29:34 +0000, Rich wrote:

>>
>> Let's Encrypt requires a dedicated IP address.
>
> Are you certian of that fact?
>

It depends on the hosting provider.

My provider requires a static IP for all certs.

>
> While I do agree with your sentiment, reality is what whomever is the
> 800lb gorilla of the moment gets to /dictate/ terms by being that 800lb
> gorilla that we others may not like.
>

Google is not an 800llb gorilla.

Google is a sickly weakling that has succeeded by pandering to the
vast hordes of ignorant humans.

This would be an entirely moot issue but FOSS has not been able, and
will not ever be able, create a completely free web browser. The developers
at Palemoon, for example, realize that the growing complexity of the
browser may put an end to their project.

There is GNU IceCat which I may take a look at, but little else is available
as a true alternative.

>
> And the web moves too fast for most regulations
>

The web is fast degenerating into a sick joke. Even serious, non-commercial
sites are literally crippled with a self-imposed and totally unnecessary complexity
based on javascript.

And the web moves too fast for
> most regulations (which would tame such 800lb gorillas) to keep up
> with. So we are stuck with what we have in many ways.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:06:15 +0100, Markus Heinz wrote:

>
> I think encrypting website traffic with TLS is a good thing as it makes
> it at least harder to tamper with or eavesdrop on it.
>

How would an encrypted connection benefit a web site that exists
solely to provide information? (Remember the "information superhighway?")

Answer: there would be NO benefit. None. Zip. Nada.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 2022-01-15 17:21 +0000 Diego Garcia wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 18:06:15 +0100, Markus Heinz wrote:
>
> >
> > I think encrypting website traffic with TLS is a good thing as it
> > makes it at least harder to tamper with or eavesdrop on it.
> >
>
> How would an encrypted connection benefit a web site that exists
> solely to provide information? (Remember the "information
> superhighway?")
>
> Answer: there would be NO benefit. None. Zip. Nada.

A malicious router in the internet which forwards the information from
the web server to the client's browser could alter the information.

Imagine the contents of a popular weather forecast website might get
modified in transmission to announce some hurricans when there is no
meteorological cause to announce this.

Or the results of an election might get modified the same way.

Or downloads of some software could be altered to contain malware.

This might sound paranoid - but technically it is possible.

I've read reports about HTTP downloads via TOR network got altered to
infect PCs with spyware.

Governments and secret services have the possibility and maybe also the
interest to do those things. Encrypting the traffic with HTTPS / TLS
makes it harder for them. But still you have to trust the source of
information of course. Encryption just ensures it get transmitted
unaltered.

On 15/01/2022 14:08, Diego Garcia wrote:
> People who maintain
> their own web sites, such as myself, are thereby forced to spend extra
> $$$$ to purchase certs regularly from a cert authority. This is veritable
> blackmail.
No, you use the free 'letsencrypt' service. takes almost 5 minutes and
costs nothing

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx