I was talking about the comprehensive study with state of the art JPEG free encoders, not the visual comparison of 3 or so images that's made to make BPG look good.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
WebP is only very marginally better than JPEG, see the linked compression studies in the original article.
Not so much a "limit" as much as a complete showstopper.
Yes and yes, respectively. Though for the latter they probably won't bother.
This is just a terrible idea.
PaleMoon is just Firefox 24 ESR. You're still using Firefox, someone just s/Firefox/PaleMoon/g 'd it.
It's been in Nightly for a while. I'm posting using it. The only thing that doesn't work well for me is...Gmail.
There's also full sandboxing support, but you need a compile time flag for it.
You don't have to. The browser is fully open source. That's why they're actually comparing vs Chromium, not Chrome. But Chromium is missing quite a few features compared to Chrome like H264 support.
PaleMoon is just a rebranded Firefox 24 ESR.
Palemoon is just Firefox 24 ESR, which is coincidentally what the Tor Browser Bundle used to be based on.
"The Chrome Security team has been a source of innovation in the browser security space. Tor Browser Bundle is based on Firefox and thus inherits progress made by Mozilla automatically. While improvements in Chrome may not be appropriate for Firefox, they could be integrated in Tor Browser Bundle. In a best case scenario, members of the Chrome Security team may be allowed to work with the Tor Project on these changes."
Basically it's saying: Chrome is also doing good stuff, combine it with the stuff you get from Mozilla for a better result.
As an anonymous troll that is an authority on the subject, I think the parent is full of shit.
The sheep (or astroturfers, can't tell) have decided that Chrome is the cool thing and everything else must die, facts be damned.
Security bugs filed against Firefox are private until a new release is out to the users. If the issue is critical (looks like it can be exploited), it will be in a x.0.1 update. If it isn't, then it will be in n+1.
Another way of stating what you said is "if Firefox engineers find a way to 0-day their own browser, they fix it before plasting the information on how to do it all over the internet".
I was wondering the same thing. The only thing the report says is "implementing security features that Chromium has and work in Firefox would help Tor".
The headline is a lie.
Internet Explorer has offered this for far longer than Chrome and it's actually quite effective when you don't click away the warnings. Note that Firefox and Safari also use the same SafeBrowsing service as Chrome does, though they have to wait for the protocol documentation to be updated before offering features like this one.