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.

As the article points out, the service is used by Firefox (with a number of privacy improvements) and Safari as well.

>He only said that he didn't want it to work with older versions, and that it was not a lot of work - i.e. it still took some amount of work - to make it not work with older versions

He doesn't say that at all. Really. It's not even remotely in the article. He talks about dropping support for Python 2.6. This isn't an action involving work! It means you no longer care if it doesn't work in Python 2.6.

>What he appears to be complaining about is "Why do projects continue to require old Python releases?"

No, he doesn't. I re-read the article after reading your post and I have no idea where you get this.

He really is talking about dropping support, i.e. no longer caring if it doesn't work on old Python versions.

>I.e. Apple and Microsoft shitheads

Microsoft was a major contributor to Opus through Skype, both with code and by providing their patents royalty free.

AMR is pretty widely used as a voice codec, Ogg is used in most major AAA games, and as for Opus/SILK, you might have used Skype before...

Depends on what mobile device? The reference code has extensive ARM optimizations, that's in fact one of the main improvements in 1.1 And yes, it can be accelerated with a programmable DSP if present, IIRC there's some support for C55x in the same reference code.

Audio decoding is fast enough on modern ARM SoC that dedicated hardware isn't strictly needed to get good battery life.

This might be due to the result of study showing that the insane bounties Google promises for top end bugs (especially for Chrome) draw many people in to look for Chrome security bugs, but that actually the expected payout for looking for Chrome bugs is exactly the same as it for for (for example) Firefox, because the latter pays more for the easier to find bugs.

Microsoft already changed their bug bounty program significantly days after the study was announced.