/tech/ - Technology

Brought to you by archive.org (again)

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(999.11 KB 360x449 "Et tu, Palemoon?".gif)
Palemoon blacklists NoScript Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 03:01:36 [Preview] No. 12708
As the subject says. It's been entered into their custom "bitch at the user with a popup until they disable it" database. To be fair to the developer, he has solid reasons for his stance. I'll try to summarize as there is a lot of misinformation and emotion out there fogging the issue.

1) The Palemoon project does not have enough developer juice to debug other software and addons.
2) Various users: "[website] does not work with Palemoon. Fix your shit, Moonman!"
3) Moonman: "Known issue. Stop being morons and disable NoScript. Thank you, and have a nice day."
4) Various users: "We did. Same problem. Fix your shit."
5) Moonman: "Oh. That's an actual issue with Palemoon then. I'm on it!"
6) Much hacking and cracking and time and talent are expended to no effect. Surprise! NoScript does not follow the standard of letting go of the browser when disabled. It lingers on. It has to be completely uninstalled with an added cache clearing operation on top of that.
7) Moonman: "It's NoScript. Get rid of it. Have a nice day."
8) Various users: "No. FIX YOUR SHIT!"
9) Moonman: "Crush. Kill. DESTROY!"

If you roll with my simplification you can see his point.

I have two observations. First, quite a few sites have a technical support checklist that runs like this: "What browser are you using? Palemoon? Oh good! We have two fixes you may choose from. One, use another browser. Two, go away and do not come back."

My irony sense is tingling.

Second observation. While understandable, M.C. Straver's hissyfit behavior is stunningly reminiscent of none other than the creator of NoScript, Giorgio Maone. I am speaking of the legendary extension war between Adblock Plus and NoScript. Mr. Maone learned his lesson and humbly carried on, much to his credit. The impression I get from Mr. Straver is not so favorable. In any event, I do not have the time to await some developer's philosophical enlightenment, nor the fortitude to scale the wall Mr. Straver threw up against public user feedback, be that feedback soberly measured or otherwise.

So, I would like to hear from the community. There are a few options I am not willing to entertain, although I do not mind people discussing them in thread.

1) Tor bundle. I already use it and am happy with it, but not for all my web traffic.
2) Just replace NoScript with uMatrix and keep Palemoon. Not a bad idea, but not going to happen.
3) IE. Lawl. Last time I used IE by choice was at version 4.
4) Firefox. Today, I view FF versus IE as a distinction without difference. Which is why I moved to Palemoon.
5) Chrome. No. Just ... no.

What browser would you recommend as a replacement?

And now, the current contender list.

1) 64 bit systems: Waterfox.
2) 32 bit systems: Dunno. This is going to be a problem for me.


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 03:38:00 [Preview] No.12709 del
>Just replace NoScript with uMatrix and keep Palemoon.
Yes do this.
>Not a bad idea, but not going to happen.
Why? It's a must have addon.
>Firefox.
Also yes. The 52. build before the recent changes is still supported and is stable.


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 12:00:04 [Preview] No.12710 del
NoScript is a usability problem (many sites don't work without JS because of the webmasters' choice or incompetence) that PM doesn't want to troubleshoot; PM have decided to label it a security/stability problem (misleading/dishonest).
NoScript actually reduces security/stability problems by blocking things that could be malevolent or buggy.
If it really were a stability problem, PM should want to fix it or work with NoScript to fix it.

Waterfox has been working well for me; Vivaldi also, although it's Chrome instead of Firefox so it might be a problem if you need/want a specific add-on.


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 13:15:20 [Preview] No.12712 del
>>12709
Any reason to use uMatrix over noScript? I've tried uMatrix a ton of times but I just do not like the interface when compared to noScript, and they both appear to do the same thing.

I think that webbrowsers are all fubar at this point. They all have some hindrance or issue to them. Chrome and some of their forks imo, work the best in a general sense but the ability to customize them, the way their extensions work and the fact that it's got Google's finger prints all over it keep me from using them.
Do the Mozilla fork developers ever get together and have like some sort of conference or anything? Given that they've all worked on all sorts of deprecated versions of the program at some point you think they'd have a lot of collective knowledge to share with the public about how the browser works and why they do what they do.

>>12710
do people really think that it would be Palemoon's fault for websites, especially modern websites, not functioning at all without JS running? Most commercial sites nowadays I just get a white screen if the top level is blocked. I don't think that's a browser issue mate.

It's good to ignore certain people I guess but the way he went about doing it doesn't seem to be the most honest thing.
>PM doesn't want to troubleshoot


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 16:25:10 [Preview] No.12713 del
(83.25 KB 791x719 2345756857.jpg)
>waaaaah palememe hurt muh fee fees so it's baaaaaaaaad software
This is literally fucking nothing, just like the whole adnausum situation


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 16:40:25 [Preview] No.12714 del
OP here.

>>12709
>Just replace NoScript with uMatrix and keep Palemoon.
>Yes do this.
>Not a bad idea, but not going to happen.
>Why? It's a must have addon.

I agree certain addons are must haves, NoScript being one of them.

uMatrix is merely duplicating the functionality of a variety of other mature addons I already use. At worst, it will be both a learning curve and trust building issue that I can ill afford at the moment. At best ... well. There is an old saying: "don't get your meat where you get your bread." If you understand the adage you should also see why I do not view uMatrix as a simple panacea, even should it deliver on all promised.

uMatrix is on my list of things to be studied for a future project. Now is not the time.

Aside from that, Palemoon has some deficiencies I was willing to tolerate. Their stance on NoScript tipped the balance in favor of further exploration.

>Firefox.
>Also yes. The 52. build before the recent changes is still supported and is stable.

Poor language choice on my part. If my problem was exclusively with Firefox I would not use Palemoon either, being based as it is on Firefox. Right? My actual problem is with the Mozilla Foundation. Operating their legacy product is simply delaying the inevitable through courting a dangerous principal. I did so for far too long, dithering along with FFv54. No point in going back now.

>>12710

I am mostly in agreement here. I prefer severely breaking website functionality in an obvious way for a more informed choice, and finer control, over ease of use. With some fiddling, most everything can be made to work with NoScript, provided one is tolerant cosmetic oddities.

>>12711

Most informative. At the moment I believe all the bad behavior can be disabled. Requiring a user to make an extra effort to do so is not right, but for now I am willing to make the effort and continue testing Waterfox.


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 16:59:03 [Preview] No.12715 del
>>12714
You don't need to study how to use umatrix, it's really one of the easiest fucking addons to use.
It's as simple as green = go, red = stop
Seriously, just download it and take 5 seconds to look at it and you'll figure the whole thing out.


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 18:08:28 [Preview] No.12716 del
More and more websites are using "loading" screens for some reason, and most of the elements are display:none until fully loaded and the js changes it. All this without any "javascript is required for this page to function properly" message. I think the currently popular UI kits (like bootstrap styles) are the one to blame here.

NoScript also has a very unintuitive pop-up interface:
>Allow http://endchan5doxvprs5.onion
>Forbid http://endchan5doxvprs5.onion
For the first time, it is not clear whether these are actions or statuses. Especially when you consider the icons next to them.

I can imagine how hard to troubleshoot this. But the way it is explained at http://blocklist.palemoon.org/info/?id=pm112 doesn't help anyone.


Anonymous 05/12/2018 (Sat) 19:42:16 [Preview] No.12717 del
>>12713
fuck you, blacklisting addons is retarded bullshit, just like HSTS and IDN lists.


Anonymous 05/13/2018 (Sun) 06:17:23 [Preview] No.12720 del
<another browser thread


Anonymous 05/15/2018 (Tue) 06:34:35 [Preview] No.12722 del
seamonkey just updated on my work computer (without asking I am flabbergasted) all of my add-ons still work though, which is surprising.
Only difference insofar as I can tell is it no longer just downloads stuff I tell it to download it asks where I want to download it each time which is a rather useless procedure.
It's still probably the best option for me at work on a windows computer.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply