Aurora...

Discussion in 'privacy technology' started by zero_Phil, Nov 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. zero_Phil

    zero_Phil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Posts:
    67
    What do you think of the Aurora browser currently shipped with the Tor bundle? I think it's bloody awful - waaaaaay slower than my previous Tor/Firefox/Vidalia setup, takes an eternity to fire-up too.
     
  2. Dude111

    Dude111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    212
    Why not just use YOUR BROWSER??

    When i had TOR i used my browser with it and it was fine :)
     
  3. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    Hi zero-Phil,

    I just went to the Tor download page and the Tor Browser Bundle is using Firefox. Maybe the other didn't work out? I knew nothing about it.

    Tor Browser Bundle for Windows with Firefox (version 2.2.34-3, 16 MB)
    https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en
     
  4. zero_Phil

    zero_Phil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Posts:
    67
    Thanks LockBox - I'll give it a try, although Aurora is a version of Firefox it's awful IMHO.
     
  5. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    I very much doubt that anyone will bundle what is essentially an unstable version of a browser.

    In any case, Aurora (~Fx10) works just fine.

    Apologies to OP: it was Aurora!
    https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser-details.html.en#contents
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 30, 2011
  6. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    This whole thing seems a bit screwy to me:
    https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

    AFAIK, portableapps.com doesn't do Aurora at all. They just do the stable and betas (if they find time). So how do these Tor guys manage to pick up Aurora 8.01 from portableapps.com?
     
  7. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  8. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    Well, goes to show I don't know the code names for browsers. I can't stand this Firefox rapid release (or whatever they call it).

    The Mozilla description:

    Aurora is a new channel between the nightly builds from mozilla-central and beta versions from mozilla-beta; as such its status is roughly "experimental".

    Why would Tor be using that? I'm baffled.
     
  9. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Possibly, but the Tor link explicitly mentions Aurora and that why I visited this thread. And even if were Firefox 8.0.1 portable, it's hard to understand why
    I doubt OP's problems stem from Firefox/Aurora. Anyway, I'm not an onion person. I'll sticky to chewing raw garlic.
     
  10. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I might be going on a limb here, but if this Tor bundle was put together during the days of FF6, FF8 would have been named Aurora then, and they never changed their description of the browser? :doubt:
     
  11. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    But my point is that portableapps.com hasn't been offering Aurora ever. They even stopped the "minefield" dailies a while ago and I had cried about it here.
    Then they even delayed doing betas for a while. I really feel there's been a goof-up somewhere and the main issue of the OP about performance is difficult to understand because Fx and other browsers are just getting better and better (in my opinion).
     
  12. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,969
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    You have a point there; normally they wait until it goes to Beta and not all versions are done.

    Perhaps Tor used the old PortableApps.com Format to do their own thing?

    I remember that... the crying I mean. ;) :D
     
  13. zero_Phil

    zero_Phil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Posts:
    67
    Well it's still Aurora in the latest Tor bundle - I tried an ancient version of portable Tor and Firefox 2 out of curiosity, it might not offer the security levels of the latest Tor bundle but it leaves it for dead speed wise.
     
  14. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Apart from clearly claiming that Aurora is slow, your posts are short of detail.

    Now you claim that this "Aurora" is slower than Firefox 2 o_O?

    Help!!!!
     
  15. zero_Phil

    zero_Phil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Posts:
    67
    Firefox 2 rocks! Aurora doesn't IMHO.
     
  16. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    You're trolling.
     
  17. rhal

    rhal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Posts:
    2
    From: https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#TBBBrowserName
    --
    Why does TBB's browser window say Aurora?
    We build Firefox from source in order to include our Firefox privacy fixes. The default Firefox build process calls the resulting browser "Aurora".

    Don't be confused into thinking the browser you see is the same as the Firefox pre-releases that were also named Aurora. A future TBB release will probably have a more recognizable name like "Tor Browser".
    --

    I found the following about:config settings help performance:

    Filter: content.
    - content.interrupt.parsing: true
    - content.max.tokenizing.time: 360000
    - content.notify.backoffcount: 5
    - content.notify.interval: 120000
    - content.notify.ontimer: true
    - content.switch.threshold: 750000
    Filter: network.http
    - network.http.keep-alive.timeout: 600
    - network.http.max-connections: 48
    - network.http.max-connections-per-server: 16
    - network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy: 16
    - network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server: 16
    - network.http.pipelining: true
    - network.http.pipelining.maxrequests: 10
    - network.http.proxy.keep-alive: true
    - network.http.pipelining.ssl: true
    - network.http.proxy.pipelining: true
    Filter: network.prefetch
    - network.prefetch-next: false
    Filter: layout
    - layout.spellcheckDefault: 2
    - nglayout.initialpaint.delay: 600

    Edit - This doesn't speed up the launch of course, just browsing. :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011
  18. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Thank you for your clarification. Much appreciated :)
     
  19. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    Yes, thanks for the information. I didn't realize that and it's good to know.
     
  20. Dude111

    Dude111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    212
    Im running IE6 (Via MyIE2) and i have my Max HTTP Connections set to 48 like it says above (Have had it like that for awhile)

    Is there anyway i can check and see if im getting that many?
     
  21. rhal

    rhal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Posts:
    2
  22. SafetyFirst

    SafetyFirst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Posts:
    462
    Why is there no more Polipo (or Privoxy) bundled with TBB?
     
  23. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    6,030
    Current Firefox/Aurora versions don't need them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.