3 ms·
I'm not very familiar with Tor. But from what I gather I think Browsh will be of interest to Tor users more than Tor network itself?
by tombh 8y ago
I'm not very familiar with Tor. But from what I gather I think Browsh will be of interest to Tor users more than Tor network itself?
- josh921 8y agoWhat you need to know about Tor is that the network consists of clients and relays. Clients are mostly users with browsers. Many of which disable JS, because JS can de-anonymize sometimes. This breaks some websites. Previously I could not visit CNN.com via a JS-disabled Tor browser, but now I can type https://html.brow.sh/https://edition.cnn.com/ https://html.brow.sh/https://edition.cnn.com/ and Viola! (Well, it's still a little crippled but much better than a blank). So, brow.sh benefits JS-disabling users. The Tor project receives donations and they dedicate them to enhance Tor. And, I think this is a neat enhancement. While I am not totally familiar with their money handling, I wouldn't be surprised if they are willing to funnel some of the funds to various side projects that improve the Tor experience. In summary, the use case you advertise is minimal bandwidth for clients, but you missed the privacy use case, which someone may want to fund. Edit: grammar fixes.
- tombh 8y agoOk great, well I posted over at r/tor, see what they say: https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/8y6z0m/browsh_html_service_converting_the_modern_web_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/8y6z0m/browsh_html_ser...
- josh921 8y agoGreat! I think your specific wording does not ring the bells for the casual Tor user (hence "why not lynx"). Perhaps you should clarify the precise use case: No-JS users can see JS-dependent websites simply by URL prefixing. They get the modern web without activating JS locally.
- josh921 8y agoBy the way SSH over Tor is also a viable use case